Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRAYERS

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BATH CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

GREATER MANCHESTER BILL [Lords]

LUTON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

PLYMOUTH MARINE EVENTS BASE BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

LINCOLN CITY COUNCIL BILL

(By Order) Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Mr. Knox: As the school population has fallen by about 1 million, and as total expenditure on education has risen in real terms since 1978–79, does my hon. Friend agree that these figures show clearly the high priority that the Government are placing on school education? By how much has expenditure per pupil at school risen in real terms since the Government came into office?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right in his interpretation. Expenditure per pupil in real terms has risen steadily since 1979 and is now at its best ever level. Expenditure per primary pupil increased by 17 per cent. and per secondary pupil by 12 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1983–84.

Mr. James Lamond: How does that compare with expenditure per pupil at Harrow and Eton and such schools?

Mr. Dunn: I am not in a position to say.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that expenditure per pupil does not tell the whole story? Why does the Inner London education authority spend more on its secondary school pupils than any other education authority when only one in seven get five or more O-levels—only six of the 96 education authorities do worse than that— whereas Surrey, spending about average for shire counties per secondary school pupil, has one in three pupils leaving with five or more O-levels? Does my hon. Friend further agree that parents arid pupils want efficient and effective education, not a mindless demand for more resources?

Mr. Dunn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the nature, robustness and thrust of her supplementary question. As she rightly says, there is no simple relationship between expenditure and the quality of education. Were that the case, ILEA would be top of the league in all respects.

Mr. Radice: Is the Secretary of State not planning for cuts in real terms over the next three years, and for cuts in expenditure per pupil? Should the Minister not tell the House that?

Mr. Dunn: As the hon. Member knows, our plans for current expenditure by local authorities this year are consistent with our commitment to a continuing improvement in educational standards. The plans for education spending by authorities in later years, set out in the 1985 public expenditure White Paper, are provisional. They will be revised later this year after consultation with the local authorities and in the light of circumstances and the prospects then prevailing.

Mr. Radice: In other words, I am right.

Mr. Dunn: No.

Expenditure

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was total expenditure on school education in England in 1978–79 and how this compares with expenditure in the most recent year for which figures are available, at constant prices.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): Current expenditure on schools by local education authorities in England amounted to £6,708 million in 1978–79 and £6,885 million in 1983–84, the latest year for which firm figures are available. Both figures are at 1983–84 prices.

Oral Answers to Questions — Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Leigh: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the teachers' pay dispute.

Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current teachers' pay dispute.

Mr. Hancock: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made since 2 May to resolve the current teachers' pay dispute.

Mr. Maude: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the teachers' dispute.

Mr. Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current dispute between teachers and their employers.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the progress of the teachers' pay talks.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): The Burnham committee met on 15 May, when constructive informal exchanges took place between the leaders of the two sides. The independent chairman noted that neither side had committed itself to a particular line or figure. Discussion is to be resumed on 23 May.

Mr. Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present negotiating machinery does not work adequately? Will he therefore institute urgent reform of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 to ensure that new machinery is devised which will include appraisal of teachers' performance and a restructuring of their salary levels?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am ready to be convinced, but I have not yet been, that a structural change is necessary. What my hon. Friend wishes for exists to a large extent in Scotland without achieving the purpose he has in mind.

Mr. Nellist: The Secretary of State is aware that the Conservative party lost control of a large number of shire counties about 10 days ago and that more and more of the local education authorities are now saying that the teachers deserve a decent rate of pay. Will he therefore say that if a better offer should be made, rate capping and other financial restraints will be lifted to enable more money to be found to give a decent rate of pay to the teachers?

Sir Keith Joseph: As I have said several times before, the answer to that question is no.

Mr. Hancock: As the Burnham negotiations are continuing to break down, does the Secretary of State not think that it is about time that he personally became involved and took over the negotiations with the teachers? I draw to his attention early-day motion 681. I hope that he will use it as a formula for a settlement of the dispute.

Sir Keith Joseph: I have seen early-day motion 681, but we must wait and see what happens in Burnham, which meets again on Thursday next.

Mr. Maude: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if our schools are to provide the kind of education that our children need it is vital that there should be a drastic restructuring of the teaching profession? Is he also aware that it is important to make it clear that should such a restructuring be agreed, money will be made available to finance it?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend knows that I have urged the employers and the teachers to negotiate such a restructuring and that I have said that if the result appears to me to be educationally desirable and financially affordable I shall take it to my colleagues.

Mr. Holt: In view of my right hon. Friend's disappointing reply, will he say what hope he has for the pupils and teachers at the Endeavour school in Middlesbrough, a school for those with special handicaps, a third tranche of whom will have to suffer inconvenience after the Whitsun holiday unless there is a resolution of the dispute?

Mr. Skinner: It is not true.

Mr. Holt: It is true.

Sir Keith Joseph: I would rather speak in general about the behaviour of those teachers who are disrupting or who are on strike and say that I think they are letting down their profession, seriously damaging the interests of the children and doing great harm to the households of many parents.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Has the Secretary of State fully considered the fact that the morale of teachers is at an all-time low? Does he not appreciate the detrimental effect

that this can have upon the long-term future of our children? Why does he not provide extra money in order to try to reach an amicable settlement?

Sir Keith Joseph: I have also borne in mind that in several cases the union leaders have been systematically, in my view, misleading the members of their unions. The teachers' unions have refused to negotiate, to arbitrate or even to discuss the restructuring which the employers have asked them to talk about.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as from today, the National Union of Teachers has called out the teachers in four schools in my constituency, three of them primary schools, and that this has been put forward publicly on the basis that these schools are in the constituency of a former Secretary of State for Education and Science? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that one can have no possible shred of respect for the leadership of a union which attempts to justify' its behaviour upon such a spurious ground? Will he sadly confirm my view that as a body the NUT is becoming the gravest danger to the professional standing of teachers?

Sir Keith Joseph: I sympathise with the parents and children in my right hon. and learned Friend's constituency, but the behaviour of any union and teacher who damages the children's education is unforgiveable.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that inflation is running at 6· per cent. and rising, that teachers have been offered 4 per cent., that they have lost 30 per cent. and yet they are the most moderate group of people and are struggling for a living wage? Will the Minister make it clear that he has 15 votes on the Burnham committee and that he has used them twice recently to stop a negotiated settlement? Does he accept that that is the reality and that the struggle will go almost indefinitely unless more money is placed on the table to give the teachers a living wage?

Sir Keith Joseph: Let me agree with one point made by the hon. Gentleman—most teachers are moderate and hardworking and take their job seriously. Let me also tell the House that the votes to officials of the Department were provided during the time of or in the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965, which was passed by a Labour Government.

Mr. Madel: Should not classroom disruption stop at once and both sides make a real effort to get a three-year pay deal which should have within it the beginnings of great rewards for effective teachers?

Sir Keith Joseph: I very much agree with the general gist of my hon. Friend's question. I wish that the teachers would go back to negotiations, and let us hope that on Thursday they start to do so.

Mr. Freud: If the Secretary of State wishes the teachers to negotiate, will he at least press his Cabinet colleagues to allow those authorities which overspend their targets not to be penalised?

Sir Keith Joseph: No, Mr. Speaker, that would be providing further public money, and I have already told those concerned that that is not what the Government intend to do.

Mr. Haselhurst: In this present difficult situation, does it not need constant re-emphasis that there is a


prospect of more money if only the teachers and employers can reach agreement on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that. The answer is definitely yes.

Mrx. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State not more than pleased that the NUT has exempted certain authorities from industrial action?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am glad that any school that would otherwise be disrupted is not disrupted, but I cannot in any way respect the NUT's decision to exempt some authorities and not others. The children are in the charge of teachers who are failing in their responsibilities.

Mr. Favell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the metropolitan borough of Stockport today no members of the NUT are on strike in the constituency of Demon and Reddish, but that they are on strike in the constituencies of Stockport and Hazel Grove merely because the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has given wholehearted support to the NUT's action whereas I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) refused to do so? Are the pupils not being used as political footballs, and has my right hon. Friend a word to describe that kind of pressure being brought on hon. Members?

Sir Keith Joseph: I repeat only that I deplore the thoroughly unprofessional behaviour of those teachers' union leaders who are conducting that policy and those teachers who co-operate with them.

Mr. Radice: Will the Secretary of State veto any Burnham settlement above 4 per cent?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman knows that the veto, which came in at about 1965 when a Labour Government were in office, is not a matter about which I am prepared, or any holder of my office has ever been prepared, to make predictions.

Oral Answers to Questions — Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Boyes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will next meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss the second year of the youth training scheme.

Sir Keith Joseph: Officials of the Department and I are in regular contact with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission and his staff about matters of mutual interest, including the proposals to expand and develop the youth training scheme.

Mr. Boyes: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, will he tell him that if we go in for a second year of the youth training scheme, the Government will be more than doubling in real terms the budget available for training? Is he aware that we are suspicious because the wages of youngsters have been dramatically eroded? Is he further aware that if he does not do that it will appear to us that he is after training on the cheap, or, at worst, that he is interested not in training but only in keeping the unemployment figures down?

Sir Keith Joseph: While that supplementary question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, I could not possibly accept that

the young people concerned are being treated in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. They are being given, for the first time, an opportunity for positive training after they leave school if they are not in a job.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite the views of the dafties on the Labour Benches, the YTS has been an exceedingly successful scheme, with about 70 per cent. of those taking part getting jobs afterwards, and that an extension to two years would prove an extra benefit?

Sir Keith Joseph: I confirm that the YTS is a successful scheme, though I am not the Minister to whom detailed questions about exact figures should be addressed.

Mr. Park: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is already a two-year scheme in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that if the results of introducing a two-year scheme in England prove to be the same as in Northern Ireland—that is, that even at the end of two years no jobs are available — we shall be no further forward? Would it not be wiser for the Government to amend their economic policy so as to secure jobs for these youngsters?

Sir Keith Joseph: One cannot always read across conditions from Northern Ireland to this country or reciprocally. I only wish that we had in our schools in England the academic results that are achieved in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when representatives of the CBI came to meet the Select Committee on Employment they said that one of their worries was that in the second year of the YTS they might be short of people with teaching skills? In view of the falling morale among teachers because of a lack of promotion prospects, will my right hon. Friend consider making it easier for teachers to enter training rather than teaching?

Sir Keith Joseph: I do not think that that calls for action by me. It is up to the individuals concerned.

Mr. Canavan: May we have an assurance that any extension of the YTS will mean genuine training and employment opportunities for young people, instead of it being just another opportunity for some unscrupulous employers to exploit them with slave labour wages, throwing the youngsters back on the dole queue after two years instead of one?

Sir Keith Joseph: I know enough to know that the hon. Gentleman is grossly distorting the results of the YTS. However, relatively precise questions about the YTS are for my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Baldry: Further to that supplementary question from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Employment invited representatives of the British Youth Council to draw attention to six bad schemes which they alleged existed? That was six weeks ago. To date, we have yet to hear of any bad schemes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that suggests that the allegation that the YTS is exploited is simply a slur by those who seek to attack and undermine this valuable scheme?

Sir Keith Joseph: Opposition Members who go in for such generalised smears damage the very people whom they purport to want to help.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread concern lest the second year of the YTS falls more into the hands of the private training agencies than of employers or mode B providers? Is he further aware that the record of those agencies on high quality educational content has not been good? Will he ensure that the Department's team is in there fighting for high educational content in the second year, linked to further education generally?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am not one who seeks to evade questions, but supplementary questions of that type are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Latham, question No. 5

Mr. Nellist: rose —

Mr. Speaker: I did not call the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). I called the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Nellist: I am the only one left to put a supplementary on question 4.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may be. Mr. Latham.

Oral Answers to Questions — Natural Environment Research Council

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on his decision regarding the corporate plan of the Natural Environment Research Council.

The Parliamentary tinder-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): Both the Department and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils have encouraged the research councils to produce corporate plans. Beyond that it is not for my right hon. Friend to make a decision on a corporate plan in the way implied.

Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the distinguished scientists of the British Geological Survey are concerned that this corporate plan will mean less geology and more administration? Will my hon. Friend set up an independent inquiry to ascertain whether the BGS should leave the research council altogether?

Mr. Brooke: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, although I cannot go all the way with him on the precise subject of an inquiry. I agree that there is a case for a study into the national needs of geological surveying activities, and I shall ensure that that suggestion is sympathetically considered.

Mrs. Renée Short: Does the hon. Gentleman understand how important it is for the Government to be seen to support our scientific institutions of international repute? If these institutions fail, we shall lose to our competitors even more of our distinguished scientists than we have lost already.

Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to tell the hon. Lady that, since 1979, the science budget has increased in real terms by 8 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of talks on the restructuring of teachers' salaries.

Sir Keith Joseph: There has been no further progress since the National Union of Teachers led the teachers' panel out of discussions in the Burnham joint structure working party on 5 December.

Mr. Greenway: Has any progress been made on the means of implementing an appraisal system? If so, how will this be done?

Sir Keith Joseph: Alas, the teachers' unions have blocked the taxpayers' money that I have set aside for pilot appraisal schemes. I am eager to embark on those schemes as soon as possible. In the meantime, I am convening a conference in the autumn on the subject of appraisal, to which local education authorities and teachers' represen- tatives will certainly be invited.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the teachers are incensed about the issue of pay and restructuring, partly because education spending since the Tory party came to power has been surpassed by the amount spent on defence? The teachers believe that the £4 billion more that is now spent on defence shows that this Government think that education has a low priority. The teachers know also that in 1980, after the Tory party was elected, the Secretary of State doubled his money. Every Tory Minister has made up for all the lost ground and now earns more than £40,000 a year. If Ministers can make up lost ground in pay, the teachers are right to ask, "Why can we not make up for all the ground that has been lost during these Thatcher years?" The other day I read that the bosses made 30 per cent. more money in 1985. Is it any wonder that teachers fight for a better standard of living?

Sir Keith Joseph: During the past seven to eight years there have been about 15 per cent. fewer children in our schools to be taught. That accounts for the fall in the amount of money available for education. In the case of defence, it sometimes seems that the opponents of this country are ever more numerous.

Mr. Colvin: With 1 million children affected by strike action this week, will my right hon. Friend endeavour to incorporate a no-strike clause in any future formula which may be agreed for teachers' pay?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful for that constructive suggestion. My representatives play only a limited, although important, part in the negotiations. I am sure that the employers will note that suggestion.

Mr. Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the attitude of the teachers' unions in wholely ignoring the restructuring talks, which offer the best hope of better conditions and salaries for union members, the teachers have made it clear that the purpose of the current action has less to do with pay and more to do with inter-union and internal union rivalries?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned that. It is clear that the teachers' unions are not exactly unanimous among themselves.

Mr. Flannery: Why does the Secretary of State not admit, rather than conceal the fact, that the teachers are not against restructuring or reassessment? Will he admit that what the teachers oppose is his insistence on tying the two things together in terms of the current wage demand? Is he aware that the teachers want new money on the table because they have lost out in all the years of Conservative Government, but that after they have obtained that


increase they will willingly discuss what is to happen about restructuring and reassessment? It is not true that the teachers are against that. Tell the truth.

Sir Keith Joseph: They give the impression of being against any restructuring whatever, but I know that the NUT pamphlet declares its sympathy for appraisal in some context and I am encouraged by that.

Mrs. Rumbold: As the discussions on restructuring coupled with the current pay dispute have done little if anything to improve the image of the teaching profession among the general public, and as my right hon. Friend shares the ambition of many Members, myself included, of wishing to attract the best possible people into the teaching profession, will he assist by explaining how we are to encourage young people to enter the teaching profession at the present time?

Sir Keith Joseph: I believe that a restructured profession, with all that that implies, must come sooner or later. I believe that that will make it even more worth while for the kind of people whom my hon. Friend and I wish to see enter the profession.

Mr. Park: Given the fact, which no one seems to have challenged, that teachers' pay has slipped by about 30 per cent., will the Secretary of State draw on his experience at the Department of Industry and realise that he must sort that out first before going on to deal with restructuring, because until he faces that issue relationships will continue to be atrocious?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Member reminds me of my experience with industry, in which there are virtually no secure jobs. The teachers have almost total security of employment and are thus much envied by many people. I believe that hankering back to comparability would bring back the rocketing inflation and unemployment which it brought to this country in the past.

Mr. Hind: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many teachers taking industrial action are doing so out of sheer frustration and that it is hurting them as much as it hurts the children whom they teach? Bearing that in mind, will my right hon. Friend do all that he possibly can to try to solve the teachers' pay dispute in the long term as well as the short term? Will he also consider the scrapping of Burnham and the merging of two committees, one dealing with terms and conditions and the other dealing with pay?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree that many teachers must be striking or disrupting with heavy hearts and I respect the large number of teachers and some unions who are unwilling to disrupt at all, but I must correct the impression given by my hon. Friend. The teachers are using methods of disruption which are virtually costless to themselves but very costly to the children.

Mr. Freud: Having given conflicting replies to me and to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), and having confused his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), will the Secretary of State now tell us what sort of appraisal he has in mind, if he has anything in mind at all?

Sir Keith Joseph: I have in mind a system or systems to be worked out with the employers and the teachers themselves. There is no question of imposing one particular, precise drill At is important that the employers and the teachers, with the Department, should formulate

methods of appraisal that will be fair and satisfactory. The House should realise that appraisal already takes place informally all the time—for instance, when promotions are offered. I am merely asking that there should be a formal procedure.

Mr. Dickens: Although, by and large, the majority of teachers do a good and dedicated job for their pupils, is it not true that many parents are aware that there are some thoroughly bad teachers? If we have to reduce the number of teachers to match the falling birth rate, should we not make sure that we lose the very bad teachers? That can be achieved only through an appraisal system in which the teachers themselves take part. Let us lose the bad teachers and keep the good ones.

Sir Keith Joseph: The purpose of appraisal is far more constructive even than that. It is to offer in-service training and career development opportunities for all teachers.

Dr. Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important that appraisal should be carried out by independent people, so that both teachers and employers feel that it is entirely independent?

Sir Keith Joseph: I think that I can agree with my hon. Friend in principle, to the extent that the appraisal should be conducted by a method respected by all concerned. I am not prepared at this stage to say that it should be carried out by independent people.

Oral Answers to Questions — Primary Education

Mr. Rowe: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children entered primary education in the latest year for which figures are available who were unable to speak English.

Mr. Dunn: This information is not held by the Department.

Mr. Rowe: As we know that a considerable number of children enter primary education without a command of English, is my hon. Friend content with the present arrangements for the recruitment, training and employ-ment of teachers who are members of the minority groups from which a number of those children come, and who are capable of speaking in the languages that the children use when they start school?

Mr. Dunn: The Department is concerned about that point. However, we must never reduce standards lo admit teachers with certain ethnic backgrounds. To do so would be unfair to them and to the children whom they aim to serve.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister give praise to education authorities such as Brent which, with a large influx of Gujarati children, was able to set up language laboratories and overcome the difficulty in that way? Will the Minister ensure that rate capping will not prevent youngsters entering primary school from learning English?

Mr. Dunn: I welcome good practice wherever it exists. Rate capping and the problems caused by it are matters for the local authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — Swann Report (Ethnic Minorities)

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations have been instigated by his Department following the publication of the Swann report on ethnic minority education.

Mr. Dunn: The Department is currently exploring with the education service and the ethnic minorities the collection of ethnically based statistics, and will be seeking views shortly on how best to increase the proportion of ethnic minority teachers. Other consultations will follow in due course.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there will continue to be a strong emphasis on religious education in our schools?

Mr. Dunn: Yes, Sir. We have made it plain on many occasions that we are committed to upholding the provisions of the Education Act 1944 relating to religious education in schools and, of course, morning assembly.

Mr. Greenway: I recently visited two weekend schools where the culture, religion and language of the ethnic minority concerned are taught out of school time. Is that not a most commendable practice?

Mr. Dunn: Entirely so. Much can be done within the maintained school system, but I look to the ethnic minorities themselves to teach their culture, standards and language out of school times and at weekends, when they can most adequately do so.

Mr. Faulds: Does the Minister realise how important it is for the integration and wholesomeness of British society that the recommendations in the Swann report should be regarded and some action taken on them?

Mr. Dunn: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — 16 to 19-year-olds

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with the chairman of he Manpower Services Commission on financial provision for 16 to 19-year-olds.

Sir Keith Joseph: The Government have invited the Manpower Services Commission to consult employers and other interests about the implementation of the extended youth training scheme, but I have not recently discussed with the chairman of the MSC the question of financial support for 16 to 19-year-olds in full-time education.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at least 20,000 young people from working-class homes will be forced to go out to work or on to youth training schemes because their parents cannot afford to keep them in full-time education? Will he urge the MSC to re-examine the need for a proper education maintenance allowance? If the right hon. Gentleman will not stand up for those young people, perhaps the chairman of the MSC will.

Sir Keith Joseph: I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would send me the evidence that supports the figures that she has so confidently produced, because my evidence shows that the staying-on rate is nearly at record levels.

Mr. Latham: Can we be sure that the new two-year scheme is intended to be a proper, integrated scheme rather than a mere extension into a second year?

Sir Keith Joseph: I think that I can give that assurance, but matters of detail are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Nellist: In his discussions with the chairman of the MSC, has the Secretary of State commented on the allowance paid to youngsters on YTS, which, had it been increased in line with inflation or earnings in the past six years, would have been £40 instead of the miserable £26·5 which the Government are paying? How does the right hon. Gentleman justify Cabinet Ministers getting a 10 per cent. rise in salary last year, directors of private companies getting an 11 per cent. rise, profits rising at 20 per cent., but youngsters on YTS having their allowance cut year after year?

Sir Keith Joseph: These are not my direct responsibilities but those of my right hon. Friend. I agree that at the heart of youth unemployment might in many cases be higher earnings than the market will pay them or than employers find it profitable to pay. If the hon. Gentleman wants to reduce youth unemployment, he should take these arguments very seriously.

Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of parents are happy to accept responsibility for maintaining their children?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the evidence exists and that we shall give it to him? At least 20,000 young people from working-class homes have to go on YTS instead of staying on in further education. It is worrying to hear the Secretary of State more or less saying that he has no responsibility for those who go on YTS, for the educational part of their courses or for integration with the further education service. Is he abdicating his responsibility to those young people?

Sir Keith Joseph: I take responsibility for the educational content, but I have been asked questions which overwhelmingly are for my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — Vocational Qualifications

Mr. Caborn: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will next meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss vocational qualifications.

Sir Keith Joseph: I last saw the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission on 29 April with the chairman of the working group to review vocational qualifications, Mr. Oscar de Ville. I have no further meetings scheduled at present with the MSC chairman, but the Department and the inspectorate are fully involved in the review. Its results will be reported jointly to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Caborn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is an urgent need for an all-embracing national assessment of education training, especially in the 16-to19 age group? Does he agree that that can be achieved only if there is a thorough review of the present system?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Sir. It is precisely because of that that Mr. Oscar de Ville has been asked to preside over a committee to do just that.

Oral Answers to Questions — Pre-School Playgroups

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the number and proportion of children entering school who have previously attended a pre-school playgroup.

Mr. Dunn: The Department does not collect information on playgroup attendance, but the Pre-School Playgroups Association estimates that, in 1984, some 33 per cent. of three and four-year-olds attended pre-school playgroups.

Mrs. Bottomley: Has my hon. Friend had time to study the evidence submitted by the Pre-School Playgroups Association to the Select Committee on Education and Science in which it documented its work on the important transition from home to school? Has he noted the emphasis that it puts on collaboration with parents, the community and volunteers?

Mr. Dunn: I shall undertake to do just that. The research project by Professor Neville Butler of Bristol university has just been completed. The research concerned the association of pre-school educational experience with later cognitive development, educational achievement and behavioural adjustment. I understand that it included children with pre-school playgroup experience.

Oral Answers to Questions — Mathematics Teaching

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from local education authorities in England following his recent statement on proposed changes in methods of teaching mathematics in schools; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dunn: The Government have welcomed the publication of Her Majesty's Inspectorate's discussion document "Mathematics from 5 to 16". HMI looks forward to receiving comments from local education authorities and others on the matters raised in the paper.

Mr. Madel: Will my hon. Friend encourage local education authorities to seek to get new recruits into the teaching profession from industry, as the new method of teaching mathematics is liable to require people who have already had practical experience in industry?

Mr. Dunn: There is always a place for more well qualified teachers of mathematics, who can teach. The plans which we recently announced for initial teacher training are designed to provide places for enough new mathematics teachers to meet the needs of the schools.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Oral Answers to Questions — Engagements

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with 26 leading industrialists to discuss their role in the Government's policy to increase the number of engineering and technology students. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further

meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Finland. This evening I shall be giving a dinner for the Prime Minister of Finland.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Prime Minister aware that a current Ministry of Defence order for 11,000 artillery shells is being fulfilled by a Belgium-based company which appears to be using Soviet TNT because it is cheapest? Can the Prime Minister let the House know what assurances have been given of continuity of supply in the event of hostilities between East and West?

The Prime Minister: The Department has a policy of introducing greater competition into — [Interruption.] Tenders are sought only from recognised and established sources of manufacture, predominantly within western Europe. We do not procure any ammunition direct from the eastern bloc. PRB, which got the order, is a Belgian state company with a high international reputation in the supply of ammunition, explosives and propellants. It is PRB which occasionally gets some of its explosives from eastern Europe.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Has my right hon. Friend noted today the publicity surrounding the 15-year-old girl who has been made a ward of court in order to have an abortion, expressly against the wishes of her mother? Will my right hon. Friend join me in deploring this most unhappy event, and will she agree with me that, in the best interests of the family, parents must be responsible for their under-age children?

The Prime Minister: That is normally so, but understand that in this case the matter came before the court, and it would not therefore be appropriate for me to comment.

Mr. George Robertson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday, 21 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Robertson: Will the Prime Minister give us the latest update on her feud with the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the solution to handling the rates promises that she has given? After the ignominous backdown in Scotland, the panic reaction in the face of the Scottish rebellion, and the £50 million buy-off which has only brought more problems for those whom she did not help. can she tell the House now who is winning the Cabinet battle to save her face?

The Prime Minister: I notice that I am constantly asked questions about the results of reviews which are still under way. The hon. Gentleman must contain his patience a good deal longer.

Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the workers of London Transport on their enormous good sense in refusing to join in a strike about which they had not been consulted? Does she share with me the sense of achievement that the industrial relations legislation passed by the Government is seen to be working most satisfactorily?

The Prime Minister: I do share my hon. Friend's views. The industrial legislation which the Conservative Government passed in the teeth of Labour opposition has given rights to ordinary members of trade unions which


enable them to have a decisive say in strikes and matters affecting their future. I note that any future Labour Government—which I hope there will never be—would attempt to repeal that legislation.

Mr. Steel: In contemplating last month's rise in inflation and the steady rise in unemployment, do any of the right hon. Lady's advisers ever suggest that what needs changing is not her voice but her policies?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will note that the Government whom he supported through thick and thin, and whose existence he prolonged, never reached as low a level of inflation as 6–9 per cent.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to encourage the chairman of the National Coal Board to give permission to that group of miners who wish to invest their own money to finance and work their own pit? Does she agree that, as they will be producing mainly for the domestic market, there can be no logical reason for stopping that sensible extension of private enterprise?

The Prime Minister: I read the reports that a number of miners in Emley Moor colliery wanted to set up a miners' co-operative. I am sure that the NCB will consider carefully any proposals that the group may put forward. The Secretary of State for Energy and I recognise that some miners may want a more direct stake in their collieries, and that is a development that we would welcome in principle. We shall do everything to help.

Mr. Kinnock: As the Prime Minister said, the inflation rate is 6· per cent. Does she still think that it will go down to her promised target of 3 per cent?

The Prime Minister: As I said, the inflation rate is 6· per cent., which is below — [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is below the lowest that the previous Labour Government ever managed to achieve. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said, we expect it to be back at just over 5 per cent. by the end of the year, and then to continue its further route downwards.

Mr. Kinnock: May I ask the Prime Minister again: does she still think that the inflation rate will reach her promised target of 3 per cent., and if so, when will that occur? What changes in policy will the Prime Minister bring about to try to promote that, or is she really once again trying to con the country on inflation, as she tried to do on unemployment?

The Prime Minister: As I said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said that we expect the rate to reach around 5 per cent. by the end of the year, and to be lower still in 1986. [Interruption.] Yes, I do want it lower still. Yes, I do want it at 3 per cent., and below. It is the right hon. Gentleman whose policies would take it right up to 27 per cent., which was the record reached under Labour.

Mr. Kinnock: When is the rate going to reach 3 per cent., or is the right hon. Lady copping out on this one again?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is talking his customary nonsense. We have a target of getting inflation down. The right hon. Gentleman's target would take inflation beyond the 27 per cent. that the previous Labour Government reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — Food Aid

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in implementing the plans agreed at the Dublin Common Market summit on the transporting of food aid from Common Market stockpiles to Ethiopia and Sudan; and if she will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Ethiopia has received about 144,000 tonnes of cereals from the European Community and its member states since the beginning of this year, and Sudan about 93,000 tonnes. Sudan has also received about £8 million worth of other food from the Community.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the highly publicised pledge by the Dublin summit to deliver 1· million tonnes of food aid to the drought areas of Africa, including Ethiopia, before the autumn harvest of 1985, is it not disappointing and disturbing that the total amount actually delivered to Ethiopia so far, with only five months to go, is 144,000 tonnes, which is less than the amount that we send to the Soviet Union and east Europe every week? Will the Prime Minister do all in her power to ensure that the Common Market keeps its pledge to assist starving Africa, particularly when other countries, such as the United States, have responded magnificently and promptly?

The Prime Minister: Yes. As I told my hon. Friend in a previous reply, progress has been slower than we would have wished, but the matter has been taken up with the European Commission. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will take it up once again in Brussels at the meeting on 23 May. We are anxious that the process of food arriving in Ethiopia is speeded up. There are problems of distribution when it gets there, which also need attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — Engagements

Mr. Flannery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Flannery: Will the Prime Minister, for once, emerge from her cast-iron casing and admit that she and she alone is preventing a solution to the teachers' industrial dispute? Will she admit that she ordered her Secretary of State to use the 15 votes on the Burnham committee and on the employers' panel to block two proposals which were reasonably acceptable and might have helped solve the teachers' strike? When will she realise that the teachers are desperate, that their morale is low and that it is affecting the children? It is not the teachers, but the Prime Minister and her Secretary of State, who are harming our children.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has always made it clear that the Government are not able to make available additional resources in 1985–86. However, for the longer term he has also made it clear that if employers and teachers come to him with an affordable package involving both pay and conditions of service he will be willing to put it to his colleagues. The proposition that teachers are prepared to discuss pay but not what they are being paid for is absurd.

Mr. Aitken: Has my right hon. Friend found time today to see press reports of a survey which show that 76


per cent. of the public wish to see the proceedings of this House televised? Can she — [HON. MEMBERS:"Declare your interest."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the end of the Question.

Mr. Aitken: Can my right hon. Friend say when the House will be given an opportunity to vote on the matter, and catch up with the House of Lords and public opinion generally?

The Prime Minister: I thought that I heard a murmur from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that there might be an opportunity for that in the autumn. I hope that that opportunity can be given.

Mr. Haynes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Prime Minister aware that inflation is rocketing to 6· per cent.? Is she further aware that she and her Chancellor of the Exchequer are telling the workers of this nation that their earnings are too high, yet they make no mention of directors in high places who receive thousands upon thousands in increases each year? They never say a word about that. How about that, then?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted that the Opposition appear to have been converted to policies that require lower inflation, and that they have utterly rejected all reflationary policies, all artificial increases in demand and all printing of money. Welcome to the views of the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Forsyth: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the over-generous tax concessions that are granted for the planting of trees? Is she aware that these are being abused, which results in the destruction of hill farms, a distortion in market land values, and the destruction of fishing interests and other activities in Scotland, with serious long-term consequences for the environment and for tourism?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this. It is rare for the Government to be accused of having tax concessions that are too generous. I shall, of course, draw his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Higher Education

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Green Paper published today on the future development of higher education. Copies of the Green Paper are available in the Vote Office $[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask those hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quietly?

Sir Keith Joseph: Copies of the Green Paper are available in the Vote Office. It covers the United Kingdom as a whole and, therefore, I am speaking with the agreement of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I see my colleagues from those Departments on the Government Front Bench.
The purposes of the Green Paper are to present the Government's thinking on future development of higher education, to set the scene for the next decade, and to invite the views of those involved in higher education and of the taxpayers and ratepayers who finance so much of the cost.
The paper has been prepared in the light of advice on future strategy from the University Grants Committee and from the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education in England, published last September. In Scotland, a review of strategy and of planning and funding arrangements for higher education is being undertaken by the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council. The application in Scotland of the policies addressed in the paper will be considered in the light of the council's advice, which will be available later this year.
As well as reaffirming the view of the aims and purposes of higher education defined in the Robbins report in 1963, the Government believe that it is vital for our higher education to contribute more effectively to the improvement of the performance of the economy. This is not because the Government place a low value on the general cultural benefits of education and research or on study of the humanities. The reason is simply that, unless the country's economic performance improves, we shall be even less able than now to afford many of the things we value most, including education for pleasure and general culture and the financing of scholarship and research as an end in itself. The Green Paper, therefore, emphasises the need for higher education to become more responsive to changing industrial and commercial circumstances, and the importance of close links between higher education on the one hand and business, the professions and the public services on the other.
Since 1963, successive Governments have endorsed the so-called "Robbins principle" that,
courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so.
The UGC and the NAB have advised that qualification for higher education should be interpreted broadly and that the test should not be paper qualifications but "ability to benefit". So long as the taxpayer continues to bear most of the cost of higher education, however, the benefit must be sufficient to justify the cost. Subject to that, the Government accept that the criteria for entry to higher

education—which will, as at present, remain under the control of institutions themselves — should place more emphasis on intellectual competence, motivation and maturity, and less on formal qualifications. Those criteria should be applied as rigorously to those with paper qualifications as to those without. The Government do not expect this change of emphasis significantly to affect the numbers of students for whom higher education should be provided. A consultative paper on student support arrangements will be published shortly, as part of the review of such arrangements which I announced on 5 December last.
As with their policies for schools, in higher education too the Government are committed to raising standards and the pursuit of value for money. In both these areas important reports have recently been published, and are under active consideration.
The report of the committee of inquiry into academic validation in public sector higher education, chaired by Sir Norman Lindop and published in April, deals with the approval, and monitoring of standards, of degree level courses in polytechnics and colleges. It recommends substantial changes in the arrangements of universities which validate public sector courses and of the Council for National Academic Awards. One proposal is that some institutions in the public sector should in future take full responsibility for their own academic standards and award their own degrees. The Government have invited comments on the report and will consider these before coming to decisions.
The report of a steering committee chaired by Sir Alex Jarratt, based on efficiency studies undertaken in six universities, has proposed significant changes in universities' planning and management structures. The present arrangements were developed in a period of increasing resources. Now that resources are no longer expanding, changes are needed if universities are to be able to spend to best advantage the public funding likely to be available. The Jarratt report will also be relevant to the rest of higher education where other efficiency studies are in hand.
In research, the Government wish to ensure that the available resources are used to the greatest possible advantage, which requires more selectivity and planning. The University Grants Committee is developing and promoting new selective allocation and planning arrangements. It is also important that commerce, industry and the public services should take full advantage of what higher education has to offer through research, technology transfer, business start-up facilities and consultancy services. The Green Paper stresses the need for higher education to pay more attention to the development of such services.
The Green Paper recognises that continuing education should be a growth area in higher education, whether for vocational or non-vocational purposes. The Government and local authorities have an important role in stimulating such provision, and the Government contribute directly to the development of in-career vocational education through the professional, industrial and commercial updating programme. But the cost should not fall principally on the taxpayer and ratepayer. Employers are urged to recognise more fully their need, in their own interests, to encourage and to pay for the development and updating of their staff,
while adults in work can be expected to contribute substantially to the cost of courses that they take for career advancement or for personal satisfaction.
The Jarratt report recommends a review of the role, structure, and staffing of the University Grants Committee. The Government have accepted this recommendation, and I shall announce the terms of reference and form of the review as soon as possible.
The Government's expenditure plans published last January indicate the sums that the Government plan to make available for higher education up to the end of the present planning period. Beyond this there are the same difficulties about providing projections of future funding for higher education as there are for other public expenditure programmes. The Government accept that they must give the best indications of longer term policies for higher education that they can, but planning also requires institutions to manage their commitments and the funds available to them so as to be able to pursue their objectives effectively in circumstances of change and uncertainty. Present projections of student demand suggest that there will be a substantial fall in student numbers in the 1990s and planning for the changes that will be necessary must begin shortly.
The Government will review their policies for higher education in the light of the responses to the Green Paper, and hope to be able to make a further statement of intentions in the course of 1986.

Mr. Giles Radice: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement and the Green Paper have to be judged by how far they meet Britain's needs as we move into the next century—the need to ensure a good supply of highly trained graduates, the need to develop opportunities for continuing education, the need to provide wider educational opportunities and the need for high quality research? By those criteria the Green Paper, like his statement, is a miserable flop.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Has the hon. Gentleman read it?

Mr. Radice: I have read it. It has few new ideas and is totally lacking in vision. Like the Secretary of State's statement, it is more like a compendium of departmental position papers than a serious state paper setting out a strategy for higher education.
Will the Secretary of State accept that the Green Paper is more important for what it omits? It is tendentious about student numbers beyond the 1990s. It says little constructive about the binary divide. It fails to establish a machinery for overall planning, although we welcome the inquiry into the UGC. It leaves the issue of student support, so vital when we are considering student demand, for another document. Above all, it is irresponsibly evasive about resources.
Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State has left the dirty work to the UGC, whose recent letter revealed that the consequences of the Government's plans will be that universities can expect a 2 per cent. real cut in their income in each of the next three years? The loss of revenue is equivalent to closing a medium-sized university such as Southampton, Exeter of Durham every year for the next three years.
Is it not the case that the 1981, and other, cuts impaired rather than improved efficiency? If the Secretary of State does not believe me, he should consult the UGC, the NAB

or the Jarratt committee. Does he seriously believe that the prospect of more redundancies, departmental closures and shutting whole institutions will create a more effective and more adaptable higher education system? Is it not true that the Government's higher education policy fails to meet our national needs? It will not provide wider educational opportunities or supply the highly skilled graduates that we require. It will fail to meet the research requirements of industry. In short, it is a recipe for national decline.
Is the Secretary of State aware that we in the Labour party reject his defeatist approach and will campaign both inside the House and out for the vigorous, dynamic and innovative higher education system that we need ?

Sir Keith Joseph: One of the main themes of the Jarratt report is that universities need a management structure if they are to make the best use of the large sums made available to them by the public, and that that management structure must enable the academics involved to know the options before them. When the Conservative Government came into office in 1979, we inherited a crisis from the outgoing Labour Government, with enormous inflation. We had to act quickly. The reduction in spending in the universities had to be implemented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), as my predecessor, at a time when the management structure proposed by Jarratt was not in place.
The hon. Gentleman accused me of exaggerating the fall in student numbers, but there is a projected fall of no less than one third-33 per cent. —in the age groups concerned in the 1990s. Against that, the Government are projecting a fall in places for higher education not of one third but of 14 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman also accused me of being evasive about resources. The Labour party seems never to need to be evasive about resources, because it always proposes to spend more. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he will spend more on universities than the Government are proposing to spend?

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I welcome the fact that today there are 60,000 more students in higher education than there were in 1979, but as the overall number of people in that age group is likely to drop dramatically in the 1990s, can my right hon. Friend say what assumptions he has made in his Green Paper about the likely proportion of 18 and 19-year-olds who will go to universities and other forms of higher education?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Why is it that Opposition spokesmen always concentrate upon the numbers in universities, as though they despise polytechnics? As my right hon. and learned Friend has said, there are today 60,000 more students in polytechnics than there were when this Government came to office, although at the highest there has been a fall in the number of university students-9,000 and 5,000 last year. As my right hon. and learned Friend also said, there is not only a record number of students in higher education but also a record age cohort. The University Grants Committee, in its wisdom — I take responsibility for the outcome— decided to have fewer places in universities to protect the indispensable research component. Although the proportion of the age


group in higher education is at record levels, we expect it to rise even higher and to be at 15 per cent. at least in the 1990s.

Mr. Clement Freud: We on these Benches believe that the Green Paper marks a shift from the unacceptable to the intolerable. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Green Paper is basically a testimony to the failure of the Government's economic policy? Why is it that the Secretary of State should be the only man in the country who believes that we have an adequacy of qualified graduates, and therefore is doing nothing to increase the number? Will he accept that he is doing for universities what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is doing for buses?

Sir Keith Joseph: The Government have been presiding over the expansion to record numbers and record proportions of the age cohort of students in higher education. I think that the hon. Gentleman must be discussing another phenomenon altogether.

Mr. David Madel: When the Government's commitment to raising standards in the classroom has been achieved, bearing in mind what has been said about continuing education, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the numbers of those seeking entry into higher education will increase and that the Government will be perfectly happy for the polytechnics to take in more students?

Sir Keith Joseph: The Government very much hope that their aim of raising the standard in classrooms will lead to a larger proportion of school leavers being qualified to go on to higher education, if they so wish and if they have the necessary maturity and motivation. We are not assuming that will come to pass, but we very much hope that it will. If a larger proportion of the age cohort shows that it is qualified for higher education, the Government will be glad to revise their plans.
As for my hon. Friend's other question, economic constraints have to be borne in mind. We are happy to expand the numbers in public sector higher education, provided that the expansion can be brought about without any diminution of standards within current costs.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Cannot the Secretary of State be persuaded to recognise that it is barbarism to attempt to evaluate the contents of higher education in terms of economic performance or to set a value upon the consequences of higher education in terms of a monetary cost-benefit analysis?

Sir Keith Joseph: I very much enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he accused me of barbarism because I felt protected by a sense that what I was doing was entirely justified. I equally enjoyed the speech of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in which—after I had consulted a dictionary—I found that my noble Friend had accused the right hon. Gentleman of living in cloud-cuckoo-land. We live in a time when, for better or worse, higher education is paid for out of public funds, when more and more research is very expensive and when business has not been as profitable as it should be. For all those reasons, it is necessary, if Britain's economy is to prosper in a highly competitive and increasingly

technological world, for the provision for and acquisition and practice of science in research terms to be supported to a large extent out of public funds.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: It would be unwise to comment too soon on a Green Paper which has only just been made available to the House, although it has obviously been made available to the press beforehand. Although there appear to be elements in the Green Paper which are acceptable, wise and far-seeing, the general theme is one of contraction. Will my right hon. Friend be asking those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who believe in higher and further education to accept further contraction—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend represents Cambridge.

Mr. Rhodes James: This does not apply to Cambridge: it applies to the higher education of this nation. Surely a policy of contraction is not one that we can accept.

Sir Keith Joseph: I would far prefer to agree with my hon. Friend than to disagree with him, but surely he must accept that, while higher education is so largely dependent on public funds, there must be some link between the prosperity of the economy and the resources available to higher education, and that as our economy is fighting to regain profitable competitiveness in an increasingly tough world, that relationship is even more unavoidable.

Dr. John Marek: The Secretary of State must recognise that his statement today will do nothing to dispel the gloom, concern and dismay which is felt within higher education. How much longer will he allow salary levels in higher education to be continually eroded when there is now a generally evident lack of motivation and morale which shows itself in the teaching, research and quality of research in that sector? If the Secretary of State does not want to go down as someone who contributed significantly to our decline as a developed nation in the eyes of the next generation, will he now announce as his aim a system of quinquennial planning or its equivalent in higher education so that there is stability in the system? Furthermore, will he give a guarantee that from this day there will be no more cuts in real terms in the system?

Sir Keith Joseph: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that, in the days when quinquennial provision was made, no Government were able to fulfil the expectations created. It is not honourable to promise more than we know we can achieve in the way of stability.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I accept that the Government are right to put greater emphasis on science and technology subjects in higher education, but does my right hon. Friend see an enhanced role for employers to persuade young people, even while they are still at school, that those are the courses that they should pursue?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Sir. The Prime Minister had a meeting this morning, discussing that very subject, with the chairmen of 24 leading businesses in this country.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Secretary of State talked about more selectivity in research. Who, and on what criteria, will be responsible for that selectivity? On what rational basis will employers be asked to pay for medium and long-term research in universities?

Sir Keith Joseph: The method of applying selectivity is the responsibility of the UGC and NAB. I repeat, the Government take responsibility for the decisions of those bodies but carefully keep away from the detailed decisions that affect the allocation of funds between universities, leaving those decisions, in the case of universities, to the UGC.
As for the interest of business men in contributing towards middle and long-term research, it is for them to decide whether there is a business interest in it.

Miss Janet Fookes: Is there to be any radical, or even superficial, rethinking of the respective roles of polytechnics and universities? Will polytechnics which are able to grant degrees be able in future to call themselves universities? My polytechnic in Plymouth would be an excellent candidate.

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend will find in the Green Paper a reference to the predominance of, and leadership in, academic work by the universities. The Green Paper also pays tribute to the indispensable function of the polytechnics in fulfilling their role, in which, far more than the universities, they serve part-time students. The answer to my hon. Friend's question about any change of name by polytechnics which give degrees is that I should need convincing that there should be a change of name.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Like other hon. Members. I have had an opportunity only to glance at the Green Paper. I note, however, the complimentary remarks about the Open University on page 19. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Open University will not look on those passages as being quite so complimentary when it bears in mind the cuts that the Government have imposed on its activities in recent years? Should not the Open University be encouraged to expand its work, bearing in mind the need for scientific and technological development?

Sir Keith Joseph: I shall send the hon. Gentleman the table in which is set out the recommendations of the Visiting Committee as to what the Open University needs and the decisions that the Government have taken on those recommendations. The Government have, to a large extent. followed the proposals of the Visiting Committee to alleviate the complaints of the Open University.

Mr. Robert Key: My right hon. Friend made no reference in his statement to the role of overseas students when planning the future of higher education. By what criteria will he target Government support for overseas students?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend will find in the Green Paper a reference to the study that is taking place into future policy in connection with overseas students. The proportion of overseas students is now 11 per cent. and rising.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify the fact that, in the light of his statement today, thousands of young students with good A-level qualifications will be prevented from entering universities and polytechnics, and has he now abandoned the principle of Robbins?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman should support his allegations with evidence. We have no evidence of any

people who are qualified to enter higher education not being able to secure a place. We agree, as has always been true, and was accepted by Robbins, that every applicant cannot expect to find a place in precisely the institution and on precisely the course that he or she wants. In general, however, we assert that there are places for ail who are qualified and who want to take them up.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that universities and institutions of higher education should be the cradle of democracy and free speech? Does he agree also that it is disgraceful that, in many student unions, some speakers have not been alowed to speak within the law to properly convened meetings? Will he say a little more about the Green Paper's proposals to challenge student union funding as a way of overcoming this problem?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend will find references to both subjects in the Green Paper. I agree that campuses of higher education should be especially careful to protect freedom of speech, even when they disagree with the opinions expressed, provided those opinions are expressed within the law. In both cases, studies are in hand. The vice chancellors and principals are considering what they can do to protect free speech further.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: As a representative of a nation which was the first in Europe to introduce universal education and which, in the middle ages, had five universities when England had only two, I repudiate completely the philistinic attitude behind the right non. Gentleman' statement. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman continues to occupy the position of Secretary of State for Education and Science when he does not even believe in education. Why did the right hon. Gentleman purport to make the statement on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland when, according to my perusal of the Green Paper, only four paragraphs out of 58 pages relate to the Scottish system?

Sir Keith Joseph: The Scottish policy is awaiting the report by the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council, which we shall receive later this year.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: As one who also represents a country which introduced universal education but who does not need to parade the fact, suggest to my right hon. Friend that one of the worst education measures in Britain, especially in Scotland, was the erection of colleges of excellence such as the Heriot-Watt college of engineering and the Strathcilyde college of business in the "bogusity" of empire building universities. We should concentrate on relevant education in colleges of excellence, and the snobbism of university status should be abolished.

Sir Keith Joseph: I am sure that our joint purpose should be excellence and fitness for purpose in every institution.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in any other country, if one were asked, "Which is better run—British universities or British industry?" the overwhelming reply would be "The universities"? In those circumstances, what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by proposing that the universities should be put in a position where some members of staff are not allowed to conduct research?


Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the UGC argument that research is needed to provide a proper background for teachers?

Sir Keith Joseph: Academics argue whether research and teaching must accompany each other if teaching is to be good. Many passionately believe that they must while others argue against them. As for depriving some from access to research, I think that the hon. Gentleman has it slightly wrong. What is at question is the distribution of public money. To make the best use of public money, it surely makes sense to concentrate resources on those who show evidence, to the UGC's satisfaction, that they can use the resources in the best possible way.

Dr. Keith Hampson: While I accept my right hon. Friend's case on the deep-seated economic problems inherited by the Government and the need to control the use of resources, does there not come a point when, to improve the economy's performance, greater priority must be accorded to resources in higher education? Does my right hon. Friend know of any other advanced Western country that is not increasing resources in higher education? Will he bear in mind that this concern applied in 1972 when my right hon. Friend, the present Prime Minister, introduced her White Paper calling for the expansion of education to contribute to the vitality of our society and economy?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Sir Keith Joseph: Before the Opposition applaud my hon. Friend too loudly, let my hon. Friend and the Opposition remember that other Western European countries became much more prosperous than Britain, until the turning of the tide during the past six years. Alas, for the 40 years since the war, this country has been substantially overtaken by those other Western European countries. We cannot absorb their example without recognising that we must make the best use of our resources, which are nothing like as great as the resources of our neighbours in north-west Europe.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to take account of the fact that the following business is limited by a timetable motion. I shall allow questions on the statement to continue for a further 10 minutes.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us who did not have the opportunity to go to university have been impressed by the fact that, since the second world war, people, especially young working people, have been given an opportunity to undertake higher education which they did not have before? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance —the country would like to have this important assurance — that, although there might well be a need to get more graduates into industry, the existing arts departments in the universities will not be closed and that the industrial sides will be developed further through our present methods of higher education? As a fellow of All Souls, the right hon. Gentleman knows —if he does not, he should—that man does not live by bread alone. He should understand that.

Sir Keith Joseph: It would be idle for me to pretend other than that the Government have openly asked the

UGC and the NAB to move a small proportion of resources and places from the arts and humanities in favour of the sciences, engineering and technology. I emphasise that the arts and humanities, when taught rigorously to appropriate pupils, are rightly regarded by employers as splendid training for responsibility in life. The arts and humanities are worth the high regard of all of us for the way in which they sharpen the minds of those who study them and for their contribution to scholarship and civilisation. As the Green Paper argues, unless we trade more effectively in the world, we shall not be able to afford the support of the scholarship and other civilised values that we wish to maintain.

Mr. David Crouch: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have reached the stage when an enlarged opportunity for higher education would aid our economic recovery and development and the progress of our society? Has he noticed that the press reaction to the leaks of the Green Paper has been to put the fear of Government into some universities? Is that my right hon. Friend's intention?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend should bear in mind that since 1979 student places in higher education have been increased by 15 per cent. There are 60,000 more students in higher education—a record proportion of a record vintage. My hon. Friend seems to be espousing shaky arguments. It is only realistic to recognise the constraints on public spending. My hon. Friend is not at one with Opposition Members who are ready to support virtually every strike and outbid virtually every element of public spending. I hope that he will see the case in the Green Paper.

Mr. Derek Foster: The Secretary of State says that he wants higher education to relate more to the economy's performance. Is he not seeking to impose the same vicious cycle of contraction on higher education that his Government have imposed on manufacturing industry? How does the right hon. Gentleman deal with the challenge that the Japanese are training 10 times as many graduate engineers as Britain?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman should not swallow such statistics too easily. The picture of our production of engineers is not truthfully represented—nothing like it — by the figure he has cited. The Japanese produce more engineers in proportion to population than we do. On the quality of engineers, it may be a different matter. The Japanese produce a significant proportion of very high-quality engineers, but some of the people who are turned out as engineers in Japan would not be so described in this country because their training is much narrower. I am not declaring contentment with our production of engineers, but the hon. Gentleman's comparison was altogether too glib.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: To what extent does my right hon. Friend judge that the system of lifetime tenure of senior academic posts prevents public expenditure from being directed to what the country needs in terms of output and what the undergraduates need in terms of employment? Does he agree that a university such as Exeter, which concentrates on oil-related engineering, medical engineering needed by disabled people and Arabic studies, which the oil industry needs, is far more in line


with the priorities that the country needs than some of the more esoteric centres which believe that they have a historic claim on our resources?

Sir Keith Joseph: In general terms, I align myself with my hon. Friend in believing that tenure is not an unqualified asset. That is why discussions are now in process with a view to introducing legislation to remove tenure in future higher education contracts. I emphasise that there is no reason to regard tenure as the only or indispensable protection of academic freedom, which we value and respect highly.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: How can the Secretary of State claim to be pursuing academic excellence when he is responsible for the UGC's 2 per cent. cut in annual grant to universities? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's elitism merely a cover for his philistinism?

Sir Keith Joseph: Like any other part of the public sector, the universities must try to make more effective use of the taxpayers' money made available to them and I am sure that they will strive to do so. I am also constantly urging them, even though this may be possible only very slowly, to increase the amount of funding that they receive from the private sector, and I am glad to note that in the past year they have succeeded in increasing those funds significantly.

Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that every encouragement should be given to innovative polytechnics such as Bristol to market and encourage the development of their own research work? Will he comment on the extent to which the Green Paper will assist that process?

Sir Keith Joseph: I can do more than that. I can comfort my hon. Friend with the reminder that legislation is now going through the other House and will soon be in this House freeing polytechnics to exploit their research activities more than they do at present.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Did the Secretary of State really mean what he said in reply to my honourable and admirable Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) — that questions of medium-term and long-term research should be left to the commercial interests of companies rather than to considerations of the national interest?

Sir Keith Joseph: Either the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me or I expressed myself badly. His hon. Friend asked me what would justify business men deciding to contribute to medium-term or long-term university research, and I replied that it was for them to judge their own business interest.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: What proportion of qualified applicants cannot find a course in the subject of their first choice, and what plans are there in the Green Paper to reduce that number?

Sir Keith Joseph: I do not think that it is possible to answer that question, but I repeat that from the Robbins report onwards it has never been guaranteed that any individual applicant will find a vacancy in the institution of his or her choice and the subject of his or her choice. That remains the position.

Mr. John Maxton: Does the Secretary of State accept the basic premise that one cause

of our economic decline this century has been our failure to invest in higher education? If that is so, why are the Government not increasing investment in higher education rather than reducing it?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman allow the inquiry into the University Grants Committee to consider the establishment of a separate Scottish UGC in order to get away from direct funding through his Department?

Sir Keith Joseph: No, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The criticism of many historians has been that this country has failed to provide technical education in schools and in higher education. The Government have taken substantial steps to make good that omission, but the Opposition have criticised us on every occasion.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the importance of the subject and I will allow a further five minutes, but then we really must move on.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: The press release states:
In the universities the Government hopes that new selective planning and allocation arrangements can be formulated and begin to operate by the 1986–87 academic year."
Does that mean that there is a possibility of the arbitrary' cutting off of research programmes which may not appear highly significant but which are none the less very valuable?

Sir Keith Joseph: I understand that the process is to be gradual and that the proposal is particularly addressed to the extra money' provided by the Government for the modernisation of equipment in some areas.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the importance of the Open University, especially for those who for a variety of reasons are unable to study at a traditional university? Will he give sympathetic consideration to a real increase in funding for that excellent establishment?

Sir Keith Joseph: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes, but I cannot give such an unqualified response to the second part.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people will be delighted at the emphasis in paragraphs 2 and 5·9 of the Green Paper on the need for higher education to contribute more effectively to the improvement of the economy, which Lancaster has long done? Will he ensure that we continue to encourage foreign and especially Commonwealth students to come to Britain, bearing in mind the important contribution that they make to the stability and prosperity of their countries on their return?

Sir Keith Joseph: Within the sensible use of public funds I think that I can agree with both my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Roland Boyes: As history shows that Right-wing Governments always find it necessary to attack their country's intellectuals, and as the Government values are leading to the erosion of democratic rights and freedoms and civil liberties, was it not entirely predictable that our universities and academics would be similarly attacked?

Sir Keith Joseph: As the hon. Gentleman supported a Government who nearly destroyed our currency and our economy, I do not think that the intellectuals have anything to look for from him or his philosophy—as intellectuals and higher education now depend to such an extent on public finance and a prosperous trading sector.

Mr. Timothy Wood: I accept and welcome the growth in the number of students in higher education, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is growing concern about the disparity in numbers, especially in science and technology, compared with many of our competitors?

Sir Keith Joseph: I do not think that things are quite as bad as my hon. Friend suggests. We must take into account not just the entry rate but the drop-out rate in some neighbouring countries. I believe that our figures are reasonably satisfactory compared with our neighbours in north-west Europe. It is true that our higher education figures are dwarfed by those for America and Japan but one would have to look more closely at the qualifications, input and output before making any definite judgment in that respect.

Mr. Gavin Strang: At a meeting with Scottish Labour Members, the university vice Chancellors pointed out that some of the students who had just graduated with first-class honours degrees had entered university with qualifications that would not now, with the cut in student numbers, enable them to gain entry. Is the Secretary of State satisfied with that state of affairs?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am very ready to accept that A-level grades are not an exclusively reliable indicator of future performance. They may be the least bad indicators that we have of one aspect of a candidate's qualifications. Character, record and other features have also to be considered by the institutions, and it is the institutions that now and in the future will choose their entrants.

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: Given my right hon. Friend's clearly stated belief that the taxpayer is entitled to benefits from his investment, can he explain more clearly to the House the proposals in the Green Paper that extend the requirements for entry into institutions of higher education from mere formal qualifications to requirements for motivation, maturity and better performance?

Sir Keith Joseph: As my hon. Friend repeats those words, I find them almost self-justifying. Someone who had the necessary formal qualifications might give evidence to the interviewers at a certain institution of lacking the motivation or maturity to take advantage of higher education. That is the reason for the Government's view.

Mr. Jack Straw: The Secretary of State talks of a 14 per cent. cut. What do his plans mean in terms of thousands of student and staff places to be cut in higher education?

Sir Keith Joseph: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman refers to the 14 per cent. fall in the projected demand rate in the 1990s compared with the 33 per cent. fall projected for the age vintage. We have the time—

Mr. Straw: How many places are to be lost?

Sir Keith Joseph: We do not know. The Government have declared the projections at this early date to give us time, with the UGC and the NAB, to work on such issues.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that polytechnics such as mine in Kingston will be pleased by the confidence demonstrated by his remarks today? In his planning, will my right hon. Friend compare the cost-effectiveness of equivalent courses in engineering and technology, which serve the vital interests of British industry, at universities and polytechnics?

Sir Keith Joseph: It is widely accepted that some departments at some polytechnics are probably stronger than some equivalent university departments.
I should tell the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that we hope to be able to publish next year a paper giving some of the implications of what we have announced today.

Mr. Bowen Wells: My right hon. Friend has treated us this afternoon to volleys of jargon. What exactly does he mean by relevant courses in the universities? Does he mean that the university teaching profession will no longer be able to tell students that they must study what university professors decide to teach them?

Sir Keith Joseph: While higher education is almost entirely supported by public funds, some attention must be paid to public benefit. That is why the Government have thought it necessary to ask the bodies concerned to switch some resources and places from the arts and humanities to the sciences, technology and engineering.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Sensible people, who mercifully exist in larger numbers in the universities than on the Opposition Benches, will welcome the initiation of a serious discussion on the long-term future of the universities. To a Conservative Government, this should be a matter of evolution rather than revolution. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the consultative documents about the UGC and student support will be published early enough to be considered alongside the Green Paper?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. There is to be a consultative document on student support, but what is promised for the UGC is an inquiry, of which I shall give details before long. The consultative document on student support will be published before long.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Why will not the Secretary of State publish the implications of the Green Paper now? If he knows the implications, surely he should publish them. If he does not, how can he present the Green Paper to the House?

Sir Keith Joseph: I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It was my fault — I misunderstood his question. We know — they are published in this paper—the number implications of the fall in student places. It will be, for variant Y, a fall of 74,000. I have promised that by next year we shall try to interpret the implications for the higher—[Interruption.] It is all explained in the Green Paper. There are charts —[Interruption.] It is all spelt out in the Green Paper. There is nothing new in this. Variant Y has been spelt out


for some time. We propose to publish next year the possible options open to the country to deal with the situation.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In view of the grave anxieties expressed on both sides of the House, will the Secretary of State press the Leader of the House to initiate an early debate on the Green Paper, which is an admission of despair and a body blow to our economic prosperity? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why. after six years of monetarist policies, he is announcing a retreat from the Robbins principle and denouncing the proposal of the Prime Minister, when Secretary of State for Education and Science in the 1970s, to get 22 per cent. of the relevant age group into higher education? Why do the Government now have a target of only 14 per cent.? Is it not a black day when a fellow of All Souls tells a House of Commons that includes more graduates each year that future generations are to be denied the opportunities that many of us enjoyed, and that, in the 1990s, we shall be training fewer graduates than ever before? Is not that an appalling state of affairs?

Sir Keith Joseph: I draw the attention of the House to pages 12 and 13 of the Green Paper, in which there are charts showing the projections. It is for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to press the Leader of the House for a debate.

Dr. Hampson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is to safeguard the rights of the House that Government statements are not released until the statement is given in the Chamber. With a document as large as the Green Paper, hon. Members are seriously inconvenienced by this practice. We all have to rush out of the Chamber for the document. That is disruptive, and we miss part of what is said. Can you assist us, Mr. Speaker, in changing the procedure. even if only by making documents available at 2.30 pm?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to make the documents available. I realise that this is an important statement. That is why I allowed questions on it to run longer than 1 had thought would be appropriate.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be possible to arrange for questioning to take place on the day after publication of the Green Paper? We would then have a chance to read it. It is nonsense to be asked to discuss something instantly. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) says that he opened the report at a certain page that happened to deal with the Open University and so he asked a question on that subject. The situation is silly.

Mr. Speaker: There is much force in what both hon. Gentlemen have said. I suggest that they put the matter to the Leader of the House. Thursday would be a most appropriate time.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I also gain your support for the idea that documents on which we are supposed to question Ministers in a serious manner should be distributed earlier than is customary? The press are given press releases to read, while we have to scrabble around and to listen carefully to what is said. That is a grave discourtesy to the House, to say the least, and does not add to the prestige that the House should attract.

Mr. Speaker: There is usually an embargo on documents issued to the press. The expressions of opinion this afternoon have been very relevant. I am sure that the Leader of the House would take note of them if the hon. Members concerned were to put the matter to him during business questions.

Fair Rating

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the elimination of agricultural derating over a five year period.
My Bill would ensure that the agriculture industry pays rates on its buildings like any other industry in the United Kingdom. Because the sum involved is substantial, I propose that reform should be spread over five years.
The fact that agriculture makes no contribution to the costs of local government is an unjustified and grotesque anomaly, which is an insult to many other industries which, in some cases, are struggling to survive under a heavy rates burden that could be reduced if agriculture paid its fair share. If the Treasury adjusted rate support grant to take account of the extra valuations, about £300 million a year would be available for reductions in general taxation.
Agricultural derating was introduced in 1929 as a modest endeavour to alleviate agricultural distress during the great slump when no other means of support was available to the industry. Circumstances have changed dramatically, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will confirm. Rates, which were then a modest burden, have become a major business cost. Farm buildings were modest and unsophisticated in 1929, but the agricultural revolution has resulted in an explosion of expenditure on costly buildings and facilities. Far from reducing or abolishing the concession, however, Parliament extended it in 1971 so that it now applies to what are loosely referred to as factory farming operations such as chicken battery systems and commercial buildings used by farm syndicates and co-operatives. Soon afterwards, case law extended the exemption to fish farming.
I find the continuation of agricultural derating puzzling because every committee set up by the Government to examine the rating system has declared that the exemption is intolerable and unjustified and should be ended. The Layfield commission, which was set up in 1976, expressed the unanimous view that there was no good reason for the concession to continue.
Why has nothing been done about this rating anomaly, which means that all other ratepayers and taxpayers have to bear an unfair burden? Has nothing been done because of administrative problems? That cannot be the answer because our efficient Inland Revenue would have no difficulty making the necessary valuations, because it constantly has to value all types of new buildings between general revaluations.
Has nothing been done because agriculture is especially depressed and vulnerable?

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes.

Mr. Taylor: This does not add up.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is both.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) must be aware of the principle of rating which is that rates must be paid irrespective of whether businesses are profitable or depressed. I could give him the names of many firms that have great difficulty paying rates. Even if profitability were a factor, the evidence shows that agriculture receives more protection than any other industry.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, it does not.

Sir Peter Mills: That is rubbish.

Mr. Taylor: Industry faces foreign competition with a tariff protection of 10 per cent., yet the protection of some commodities exceeds 200 per cent. through import levies. While industry struggles to secure customers, farming in general receives a guarantee that all of its produce will be purchased at a price well above that in the market—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That is not true.

Mr. Taylor: We spend more than £100 million every week in the Common Market destroying food, dumping it or storing surplus produce that cannot be sold. There is no special case, but even if there were the principle of business rating is that rates are paid irrespective of profitability, as many firms in my constituency and others, including agricultural ones, know to their cost.
Has nothing been done because rating reform is round the corner? Far from being a reason for inaction, the prospect of reform should make us even more determined to set down a marker that the concession should not be written into any new system.
Are we refusing to act because food prices would rise?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes.

Mr. Taylor: Even if that were true, there would be commensurate reductions in the price of other goods as the burden was taken off other industries. Even those who argue the case of agriculture know that farming prices do not reflect costs or the operation of the market because of the Socialist and interventionist price-fixing arrangements of the common agricultural policy.
I believe that there has been no action to remove an anomaly which we all know is a grotesque nonsense and an insult to ratepayers because it would involve putting an additional burden on an industry which has a great deal of friends and political clout and has much sympathy from all of us. That is especially true because the chemical industry is now integrated with agriculture and many City institutions and pension funds have sizeable holdings in the land.
There is a basic theme to the Government's policies — the removal of all unjustified privileges and protections and the eradication of unfair subsidies. Whether it be the mining industry, the car industry or engineering, we must remove unfair privilege and subsidy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has rightly said that, when considering the future of rates, we should try to ensure that a wider section of the community which benefits from local authority services should contribute to the costs of local government. Agricultural derating is an illogical and unjustified privilege. It runs contrary to natural justice and is terribly unfair to other ratepayers. I hope that the House will cast aside any special interests and ensure that this wholly unjustified privilege is removed.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Wholly justified.

Mr. Taylor: I am aware from the shouts that, when it comes to voting, I shall be on a rather sticky wicket, but surely justice will prevail in Parliament. I am comforted, amid the scandalous shouts and abuses of procedure, by the knowledge that my cause is just and that, in the last


century, it took 15 years of determination in Parliament to repeal the Corn Laws. This is a similar injustice. We should stand up for every ratepayer in Great Britain and treat everyone the same way. We should tell them that Parliament believes in justice and equity.

Mr. Geraint Howells: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the motion?

Mr. Howells: Yes. I declare my interest as I am involved with the agriculture industry.
I oppose the motion on several grounds. First, rather than produce justice and fair play as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) claims, the Bill would merely add to the complexities inherent in the present rating system. We all know that there are many anomalies and unjustices in that system and that we must eventually find a just solution, but why should we add to the confusion by introducing yet another category of rateable property?
The hon. Member has already condemned the whole rating system. I was interested to read an article that he wrote only last March on this very subject.

Sir Peter Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) speaking on behalf of the Liberal party? If he is, it should be made clear that the Liberal party supports agricultural rating.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Howells: Having analysed and dismissed several choices for rating reform, the hon. Gentleman presented his own solution thus:
we should sweep away all rates—for householders, industry and commerce—and provide funds for local councils from the Treasury.
In this way, he says:
we would get rid of all the injustices of rates entirely.
Today, however, with this measure the hon. Gentleman is turning his own argument on its head.
The second reason for strong opposition to the measure is that its application would place an unjust burden on the sections of the farming industry that are least able to bear it. What the hon. Gentleman perhaps does not understand is that there is tremendous variety in the agriculture industry, and that some sectors of the industry need to use outbuildings more than other sectors. Therefore, it is not the cereal grower, reputedly at the top end of the financial scale, who is likely to be penalised by additional rates, but the livestock farmer and especially the dairy farmer, who have suffered enough in the last year or so, and who will have to pay heavy bills for essential buildings.
It should also be remembered that the value of the output of agricultural buildings is very low in relation to the capital value of the buildings. This fact would present even more anomalies when comparisons are made with other industries.
I am entirely sympathetic to the concern of the hon. Gentleman for small businesses in particular. Their burden in terms of rates should be given urgent consideration. There is a need to change the system. It is patently in need of reform. However, the answer does not lie in extending the burden to other categories of small business, which include the farmer.
I should like to stress also that the rating of agricultural holdings could well be seen as the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. Many people fear that agricultural land itself would be in danger. I put on record that the Liberal party is against the rating of agricultural land because we do not think that it is right to add to the already high cost of producing food, and our concern, therefore, is just as much for the consumer as it is for the producer. Food is necessary to life, and its production cannot be compared to the production of other commodities and taxed in the same way.
The measure in my view is a retrograde step which merely tinkers with solutions and adds nothing to the serious debate on rating that needs to be considered urgently. Another way must be found of producing a system that is fair and just for all sections of society.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order,No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 184.

Division No. 214]
[4.45 pm


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lamond, James


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Litherland, Robert


Bell, Stuart
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Benn, Tony
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Loyden, Edward


Bermingham, Gerald
McCartney, Hugh


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Boyes, Roland
McKelvey, William


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McWilliam, John


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Marek, Dr John


Caborn, Richard
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Canavan, Dennis
Maxton, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Maynard, Miss Joan


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Michie, William


Clay, Robert
Mikardo, Ian


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Corbett, Robin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cowans, Harry
O'Brien, William


Craigen, J. M.
O'Neill, Martin


Crowther, Stan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cunningham, Dr John
Ottaway, Richard


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Park, George


Dixon, Donald
Patchett, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Pike, Peter


Dubs, Alfred
Randall, Stuart


Duffy, A. E. P.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Eastham, Ken
Robertson, George


Edwards, Bob (W'h'ampt'n SE)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Faulds, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Fisher, Mark
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Flannery, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Forrester, John
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Snape, Peter


Garrett, W. E.
Soley, Clive


George, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Straw, Jack


Godman, Dr Norman
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Tinn, James


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wareing, Robert


Haynes, Frank
Weetch, Ken


Heffer, Eric S.
Winnick, David


Home Robertson, John



Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. Richard Shepherd and


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Mr. Jonathan Aitken.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Fox, Marcus


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Franks, Cecil


Amess, David
Freud, Clement


Ancram, Michael
Gale, Roger


Arnold, Tom
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Ashdown, Paddy
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Beggs, Roy
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Benyon, William
Gorst, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Greenway, Harry


Blackburn, John
Grist, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grylls, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harris, David


Brinton, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruce, Malcolm
Hawksley, Warren


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hayhoe, Barney


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hayward, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Henderson, Barry


Burt, Alistair
Hind, Kenneth


Butcher, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Holt, Richard


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hordern, Peter


Cartwright, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cash, William
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Chapman, Sydney
Howells, Geraint


Churchill, W. S.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Irving, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jackson, Robert


Clegg, Sir Walter
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Crouch, David
Kennedy, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dunn, Robert
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Tony
Kirkwood, Archy


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lang, Ian


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Latham, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fookes, Miss Janet
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Lester, Jim
Renton, Tim


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Rowe, Andrew


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lord, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


MacGregor, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Silvester, Fred


Maclean, David John
Sims, Roger


Maclennan, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Major, John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Malins, Humfrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malone, Gerald
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mather, Carol
Stern, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Meadowcroft, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Mellor, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thornton, Malcolm


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Monro, Sir Hector
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moore, John
Waddington, David


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Moynihan, Hon C.
Walden, George


Neale, Gerrard
Wall, Sir Patrick


Nelson, Anthony
Wallace, James


Neubert, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Onslow, Cranley
Watson, John


Osborn, Sir John
Watts, John


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wheeler, John


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Wiggin, Jerry


Pawsey, James
Wigley, Dafydd


Pollock, Alexander
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Porter, Barry
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Price, Sir David



Proctor, K. Harvey
Tellers for the Noes:


Raff an, Keith
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Rathbone, Tim
Mr. David Penhaligon.

Question accordingly negatived.

TRANSPORT BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Ordered,
That the Reports [13th and 20th May] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Reports considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolutions, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee [13 May]:
That—

(1) The order in which proceedings on Consideration are taken shall be New Clauses, Amendments to Clause No. 1, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 2 and 3, Schedule No. 2, Clauses Nos. 4 to 55, Schedule No. 3, Clauses Nos. 56 to 94, Schedule No. 4. Clauses Nos. 95 to 114, Schedules Nos. 5, 6 and 7, Clause No. 115 and new Schedules;
(2) The allotted days which under the Order [1st April] are given to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
New Clauses
Midnight


Second day
Amendments up to the end of Part II
6.00 pm



Amendments up to the end of Part IV
7.30 pm



Remaining Proceedings on Consideration
9.00 pm



Third Reading
10.00 pm

Following is the report of the Business Committee [20 May]:
That the resolution of the Committee reported to the House on 13th May be varied by substituting the following provisions for those in the Table at the end of that Resolution:

TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time of conclusion of proceedings


First day
New Clauses
10 pm


First
Amendments up to the end of Part II
Midnight


Second day
Amendments up to the end of Part III
6 pm



Amendments up to the end of Part IV
7.30 pm



Remaining proceedings on Consideration
9 PM



Third Reading
10 PM

Orders of the Day — Transport Bill

[IST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 6

APPLICATION OF RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1976 TO AGREEMENTS BETWEEN ROAD PASSENGER TRANSPORT OPERATORS

'. —

(1) Paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) Order 1976 (which excepts certain agreements between road passenger transport operators from the agreements which by virtue of Article 3 of the Order are agreements to which the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 applies) shall cease to have effect.
(2) That Act shall have effect in relation to any agreement (within the meaning of that Act) made before this section comes into force as if the variation of that Order made by subsection (1) above had been made by an order under section 11 of that Act coming into force on the date on which this section comes into force. '.— [Mr. David Mitchell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move. That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 122.

Mr. Mitchell: The purpose of new clause 6 is to remove the exemption from restrictive trade practices legislation that currently applies to agreements between bus and coach operators. That exemption was appropriate when bus services were regulated. It will not be appropriate following deregulation. Competition is at the heart of our policy for buses, and the purpose of restrictive trade practices legislation is to foster competition and to prevent undesirable restrictive trade practices.
In future when two or more operators enter into agreements by which they accept restrictions concerning the fares they will charge, the areas they will serve, the frequencies to the services and so on, they will be required to register such agreements with the Office of Fair Trading. Agreements that involve significant restrictions are to be referred by the Director General of Fair Trading to the Restrictive Practices Court.
However, I should add that, although the Restrictive Trade Practices Act is of general application, it allows a certain amount of flexibility. I emphasise that, of the agreements that are registrable, it is only those that contain significant restrictions that are likely to be referred to the court. It will then be open to the parties to those agreements to seek to persuade the court that, in terms of the criteria laid down in the Act, they are not against the public interest and can therefore stand. So the provision does not spell the end of all forms of agreement between bus operators. It does provide an essential safeguard for the interests of the passengers, which we regard as supreme in terms of the new legislation.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The new clause is an interesting example of the muddle into which Ministers have got themselves over the entire Bill. Throughout the Bill, first and foremost we are deregulating bus services. It is clear that if the interests of the passengers were truly paramount, they would require that co-operation was one of the most important things that could be offered to the traveller.
It is extraordinary that two or more operators will be covered by the agreement. I ask the Minister why he must set the number so low. In a rural area, we shall presumably have all the tiny bus companies that the Minister has been extolling throughout the Bill, the one man with his redundancy pay buying one bus. If he comes to a sensible timetable agreement with another man with a bus that he, too, has bought with his redundancy pay, will he automatically be referred to have his careful organisation examined in case he is in some way promoting a restrictive trade practice? If it were not so embarrassingly stupid, this would be one of the funniest clauses that even this hilarious Government have introduced throughout this bizarre, thankless and unnecessary Bill.
If we are to believe the Secretary of State, the National Bus Company and all the other bus operators are to be broken down into tiny units which, in some cases, will be no longer than that operating out of one particular garage. At present the co-ordination of timetabling, particularly the co-ordination of services, is of most use to the traveller. We have been unable to persuade the Secretary of State, who is really not interested in transport, of the advantages of transport planning. Indeed, he seems to reserve some of his rudest comments for those who have made the mistake of acquiring transport qualifications, whom he seems to regard as less than the dust. If he had been prepared to accept that co-ordination is vital, he would have seen that, inevitably, many operators, even if they are independent, will want to dovetail their services with those of their competitors in areas where, for one reason or another, there is enough work to go round to provide several services.
If the Secretary of State is to be believed, we could find ourselves with many small independent operators, not large ex-National Bus Company companies. That is a valid point. We know that at present, even before the Bill becomes law, many independent companies work closely with NBC companies. They plan interchanges, dovetail their services and provide support services for each other. There is no great danger in that to the passenger. Indeed, it is to his advantage. Yet if as few operators as two could be referred, the position would become dangerous.
Is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary genuinely of the opinion that the sort of transport planning that arises from operators reaching a sensible agreement is in some way a dangerous trade practice? If so, how does he justify his attitude since passengers want well timetabled, well planned and available services? If he is genuinely considering passengers, why on earth does he set the level as low as two operators?

Dr. John Marek: I wish to echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). The new clause shows what nonsense the Bill is. The proposal is to deregulate bus services completely, yet the new clause shows that the

Government are worried about restrictive practices emerging. It is entirely possible that in some cases that will benefit the public. I shall give one simple example.
A town bus service may follow a route but not go to the extremities of a town because it is not worth it. A second bus operator may have a route part of which is the same as that of the first operator. Both operators may find it unprofitable to go to the extremity of the town, for example, to a housing estate, although they may both find it profitable to work the route inside the town. They could reach an agreement under which one would operate to the town's extremities on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and the other on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. That would be in the interests of the public, and the operators might be able to get a return for their services if they operate alternately, although they could not if they both operated the service every day. There would be profit in it and, as we know, the Government are interested only in profit, not whether passengers can get on buses. In that example, I would be in favour of a restrictive practice. The philosophy of the Labour party is along those lines.
Because of the position in the stage carriage services today, it is necessary to have something called integration. I shall not dwell on that, but it is symptomatic of the difference of attitude between the Opposition and the Government.

Mr. Eric Forth: Lest the House should be mistaken in this matter, will the hon. Gentleman explain from his perception how it is that over the decades an inexorable loss of passengers from the buses, a decline in the level of services and massive increases in fares and subsidies, which we seek to sort out, show a healthy bus industry, as opposed to the picture that he paints?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) said that there had not been a decline in passengers in Yorkshire. [HON. MEMBERS: "We know why."] I am sorry that Conservative Members say that they know why. The answer is that "Fares fair" has been sufficiently low to provide a good bus service of which everyone can take advantage without having to worry whether he can afford to pay for it.

Mr. Forth: rose —

Dr. Marek: I shall certainly give way in a moment.
The costs of that service are taken from general taxation and paid for by the people of Sheffield. That is their choice, and as members of the electorate in Sheffield they should be allowed to make that choice. It is wrong for the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) to deny the citizens of Sheffield the type of service they want. He may well have some technical arguments about taxation with that money coming from the general pool and then being distributed, but that is not necessarily relevant to the new clause. Some changes may be necessary — we discussed that in Committee — to ensure that the responsibility for providing services falls on the people in those areas, subject to a minimum standard of support dependent on the prosperity of the area.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Sheffield, like many other cities, has nearly half of its rates paid by the Treasury through rate support grant, that that money is garnered from every corner of the country and, therefore, that authorities and people in other parts which do not choose to subsidise their


bus services but run them economically are subsidising the people of Sheffield? Why should they be subsidised at the expense of the rest of the country?

Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman must know that rate support grant is at a certain percentage throughout England and at a different percentage throughout the whole of Wales, and that different arrangements apply in Scotland. Therefore, the argument could easily be turned the other way. It could be argued that the citizens of Sheffield are paying for the bus services in Lancashire and Mid-Worcestershire.

Mr. Richard Caborn: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the transport policy for the Falklands were applied to south Yorkshire, the cost to the Government would be about £500 million, which is about 50 per cent. of that which is provided to the Falklands? Does he further agree that there is a slight disparity between the transport policy for the Falklands and that for the United Kingdom?

Dr. Marek: Obviously, as my hon. Friend has produced those figures, I agree.
There is complete disparity and lack of judgment by the Government about which policies should be given proper weight in this and many other areas. For many years it has been evident to Opposition Members—it is also clear from the opinion polls, if they are anything to go by—that the Government will not sit on those Benches for much longer.
It is curious that the Government introduced the new clause because they are worrying about restrictive practices. During all our Committee proceedings they talked only about deregulation, people doing whatever they liked, and not wishing to stop an operator doing anything if he could make money from it. It was immaterial whether the public were served by such practices.
I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich: the fact that the Government must introduce such a new clause on report shows the stupidity of the Bill.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I also wonder, when so much thought has apparently been given to the Bill for so long, why the new clause has been introduced. Why was it not introduced in Committee or, indeed, inserted in the Bill from the start? What events, what train of thought, and what events have made the Government table the new clause now?
As my hon. Friend said, agreements between operators are not per se against the public interest. Indeed, they can be in the public interest. It is perfectly sensible for an operator to agree with another operator, especially in rural areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) pointed out, to divide the services between them. The public do not want queues of competing buses, but a bus. The Opposition fear that in many suburban and rural areas, especially at weekends, there will not be a bus. There will be no bus, for sound, private enterprise reasons: it will not pay the operator to send out a bus. That will be the result of the Bill.
Why have the Government introduced this new clause so late, and why do they believe that fair agreements,

which are made in other trades and industries, must automatically operate against the interests of the travelling public?

Mr. Forth: I cannot understand why the Opposition are puzzled about the introduction of the new clause. Having spent all the hours that we did together in Committee, there is every good reason for the Government to come to the House now with a reasonable measure that no doubt emerged from our dialogue in Committee—

Mrs. Dunwoody: Dialogue?

Mr. Forth: I said "dialogue". I can understand why the hon. Lady is surprised, bearing in mind the one-sidedness of the proceedings in Committee. However, if Labour Members wish it, we can return to that subject later.
The Bill will introduce a new approach to transport. not the uniform approach of the past. The uniformity of attitude, techniques and vehicles—any uniformity that one cares to think of—has utterly failed us in the past, has caused a decline in the bus sector and has not provided the travelling public with what they want. We need only examine the inexorable decline in the number of travelling passengers during the years to understand that they have made their judgment on the inadequacy of bus services. The Bill and especially the new clause address that problem. We wish to ensure, as far as reasonably possible, a new approach to the provision of bus services.

Mr. Jim Craigen: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman told us about the reduction in, the number of people travelling by bus, how does he account for the reduction in the number of people travelling by bicycle during the same period?

Mr. Forth: I doubt whether that is true. Recently, there has been a great revival in the use of bicycles, and one need only consider the number of bicycles on the premises to prove the point. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has recently taken to the bicycle; even among us, there are living examples of people who are taking to two wheels to get around.

Mr. Hind: Perhaps if my hon. Friend and I had consulted Dr. Snashall, the House of Commons doctor, we would be riding bicycles. People today are much more exercise-conscious, and the bicycle is an ideal way of taking exercise.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister introduced the new clause, because he has understood, as he invariably does, the necessity to make the Bill work for the benefit of the travelling public. In doing so, we must ensure the provision of a variety of flexible services by private operators who know their localities and the needs of local passengers. They will provide the sort of service to which passengers will respond by paying their fares, which will provide revenue and profit to the operators. Everyone will be satisfied.

Mr. Craigen: The hon. Gentleman need not consult the House doctor. He need only read the first report of the Select Committee on Transport, which shows that the share of passenger travel by bicycle decreased during the period about which we are talking.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I thought that we were here to discuss the provision of bus services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not bring


bicycles into the discussion too often. Perhaps he has taken to heart the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
I welcome the new clause, which is a demonstration of the extent to which the Government listened to the debates in Committee and were prepared to introduce several measures, responding to requests made from both sides of the Committee, to improve the operation of the Bill and to achieve its aims. In that spirit, I wholeheartedly support the new clause.

Mr. Peter Pike: The new clause shows how ill thought out the Bill is and how quickly the Government have tried to get it on the statute book. I still do not believe that they are aware of the problems that will arise, especially in the provision of rural and off-peak services. No doubt, when the Minister replies to this debate, he will say that the new clause was introduced to ensure unfettered and fair competition. But if the Government were sincere about that, they would have introduced amendments to ensure that terms and conditions of service are laid down when tenders are invited. There is no such provision in the Bill as drafted. The Government intend to make the Bill work by worsening the working conditions of employees in the bus industry. That is the only way in which they can hope to achieve a sensible operation of the Bill.
If the Government are moving the new clause to try to secure fair competition, they should have tabled another amendment to ensure that the terms and conditions of employment will be at least equal to those in the municipal undertakings, the National Bus Company and all passenger transport authorities.
It is for local electors to determine by how much they wish to subsidise their public transport services. That should not be determined by national Government. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) said: if the people of Sheffield wish to pay that subsidy in their area, they have the right to do so. I know that Conservative Members will talk, as they did in Committee, about the large subsidy from the Government in rate support grant and the fact that most rates are raised from business and commerce. However, at the end of the day, the people determine who they want to serve in local government. It is a retrograde step to remove from local authorities the power to determine what transport they want in their areas, what fares they wish to charge and the subsidies that they wish to give.
Conservative Members do not accept that view; nor do they accept that public transport is a public service. My hon. Friends and I wish it to develop in that way. During our debates today and tomorrow, there will be many conflicts, because, after all the hours of debate in Committee, the Government will not budge an inch. They do not recognise the need to safeguard transport, especially for the young, the elderly, the disabled, and those who need off-peak, Sunday and rural services.

Mr. Hind: I welcome the new clause, which is a sensible improvement to the Bill. We have heard the stock response from the Opposition that any change in the Bill constitutes a muddle, not an improvement. But this clear improvement has arisen from our discussions in Committee. The Opposition do not understand the essence of the Bill, which is to give the public a greater and

cheaper choice of public transport. That inevitably means the introduction of more operators to fill existing gaps, especially in rural areas. They can be filled by the one-man bus operations that the Opposition are so fond of knocking and for which they express so much contempt.
The clause protects the choice which it is essential to preserve under the Bill by allowing small operators to stay on the road. The simple pilot scheme in Hereford and Worcester provides a reason for the clause. The National Bus Company, by introducing buses from other parts of the country, attempted to drive out the new small operators. The new clause will prevent two large operators from getting together to drive out competition that may be in the public interest.

Dr. Marek: rose —

Mr. Hind: The smaller companies may have lower fares and lower overheads. Therefore, it will be in the interests of bigger operators to drive them out. The clause is thus essential to protect the interest and choice of the general public.

Dr. Marek: rose —

Mr. Hind: I shall give way in a moment.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) commented with contempt about the referral by the Director General of Fair Trading to the Restrictive Practices Court, but it must be borne in mind that the Director General of Fair Trading and his office will be a filter to consider all the agreements and to decide whether an agreement is fair. If he finds that an agreement is in the public interest, it will not be referred to the Restrictive Practices Court. That gets over the criticism of two one-man bus operators working together to run a service by themselves. The clause will provide an essential legal safeguard. This is a piece of the jigsaw that was missing from the Bill originally. It is essential protection for the general public.

Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Hereford trial area. He should know that competition is now confined to just one corridor on the east of the city. The lesson is clear: everyone has run at a loss in the trial area and nobody produced conclusive evidence that there has been a profit. Does the hon. Member also know that services to Kington and Presteigne are not as good as they were before and that no new routes have been created? If the hon. Gentleman says that is a good result of the Hereford trial, heaven help us.

Mr. Hind: Perhaps the hon. Member will bear in mind that during the pilot study the National Bus Company reduced fares to virtually nothing. How can that possibly mean that it ran an economic service? Can it have had any intention other than to drive off the road any competition that was already there? I do not accept that the bus service in Hereford and Worcester is worse than it was before but, if it is, the people in the area can put it down firmly to the reaction of the National Bus Company in cross-subsidising the Hereford and Worcester operation with fares collected elsewhere from bus users who were not paying economic fares.

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose —

Mr. Hind: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has given a strong argument for the clause and I commend the Secretary of State for tabling it.

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose —

Mr. Hind: I am sure the hon. Lady will have an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Richard Caborn.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has given way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman had given way.

Mr. Hind: I had given way, Sir.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West has raised some interesting points, not least because Midland Red was competing and using industrial muscle. Is he aware that the National Bus Company has made it clear that if the Bill becomes law one of the first things that will happen is that there will be a 30 per cent. cut in services, and from that moment on it will compete in any way possible with anybody who wishes to run services in the same area? Will he not accept that that will happen and that Hereford gives a clue? Where people are prepared to compete on small town routes there may be more buses initially but that does not mean better services. Now we know that in Hereford the people have worse services than they had previously.

Mr. Hind: The hon. Lady should consider the name of the office which will oversee this sort of thing; it is the Office of Fair Trading. I take the view that what happened in Hereford and Worcester was unfair trading. The purpose of the new clause is to make sure that the competition is fair. Unlike the Opposition, we do not believe that competition is de facto bad. We see it as the essence of the Bill. I hope that the voters of Hereford and Worcester will remember what has happened. Certainly the competition there was not fair.

Mr. Caborn: The new clause indicates clearly that the Government are fishing around in regard to competition. The only restrictive practice will be that passengers who hitherto had buses to travel on will no longer have them. The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) indicated the philosophy behind the Bill—profitability and fair trading. At no stage did he talk about producing a service for the people, whether in Hereford or anywhere else.
It should be understood that the basis for the Bill revolved around the Hereford trial area. It has been in force for about two and a half years and has been an unmitigated disaster from every point of view, so much so that when the Tories were trying to sell it to the public in a party political broadcast they had to film two dear old ladies of 30 years' standing in the Tory party.

Mr. Forth: rose —

Mr. Caborn: I shall give way in a moment.
We have tried to analyse seriously what is happening in Hereford and in other areas, particularly south Yorkshire. We have never tried to hide the fact that south Yorkshire gets subsidies from central Government but they are being used most responsibly to provide a proper public and integrated transport system, unlike the service in Hereford. If the Government try to include new clause 6 in the Bill they will be doing the people further injustice. It will have considerable effect on the disadvantaged.
People from the trade unions who came to London to discuss the matter with Back-Bench Tories were appalled

at the lack of knowledge among hon. Members who will be voting on the Bill. The only conclusion they could reach was that Government Back Benchers, knowing very little about the matter, had been conned either by hon. Members who were on the Committee or by the Government Front Bench. When the implications were spelled out to some of the Back-Bench Tories, they were having different thoughts. Whether they have the guts to go through the Lobby later, we shall see.

Mr. Matthew Parris: The procedure for referral under the restrictive practices legislation gives ample scope for filtering out complaints of what may seem to be restrictive practices where there is a good argument in the public interest that those practices should take place. I am happy about that, and the House should be happy.
New clause 6 is a welcome addition to the Bill because it is a better way of filtering out such complaints than clause 55 and subsequent clauses. That clause obliges authorities
so to conduct themselves as not to inhibit competition between persons providing or seeking to provide public passenger transport services in their area.
That would not be determined under the restrictive practices legislation, and the fact that there was a good argument in the public interest for practices that inhibited competition would not be a defence to a charge that an authority had so conducted itself. It is better to do this through restrictive practices legislation than through the ordinary courts in the way envisaged by clause 55 and subsequent clauses. I shall be interested in the reaction of my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. David Marshall: The remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) about the decline in public transport were misleading. We all know why people no longer use public transport, and the Bill will do nothing to change that. It will make the situation worse, because people will have less access to public transport.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) that agreements between companies can work in the public interest and to the benefit of the companies and their employees. A classic example of this is the situation in Strathclyde, where British Rail, the Scottish Bus Group, the Strathclyde PTE and a number of independent operators are all working in a harmonious relationship. I do not know whether there is a formal agreement or just a gentleman's understanding, but the system works reasonably well.
Under the new clause, the law of the jungle will prevail. The Scottish Bus Group has already made its attitude clear. It will compete by whatever means it takes to maintain and increase its share of the market. The big strong company will, in many cases, eliminate the small independent companies, some of which have been long established. There will be a further increase in the ever-growing number of companies that go bankrupt under the Government's policies. The companies and their employees will suffer. I see no benefit from the new clause. Therefore, I shall join my hon. Friends in opposing it.

Mr. David Mitchell: The House should be indebted to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) for


his intervention because he drew attention to what he referred to as pedal power—those who move about by bicycle. Unfortunately, he misread the document to which he was referring. Table 1 of the White Paper on buses shows that travel by pedal cycle went up from 4 billion passenger kilometres in 1973 to 5 billion in 1983, an increase of 25 per cent. That increase has been due to the deterioration of the availability of buses under the existing system—one of the profound reasons why we have had to introduce this legislation.
The increase in the number of people using bicycles is a mirror image of the decline of 28 per cent. in bus passenger numbers over the past decade, reflected in the huge decline in the number of jobs in the bus industry. That should be a cause of concern to the hon. Member and his hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that the Government were in a muddle. It is not the Government who are in a muddle, but the hon. Lady. She said that two operators who harmlessly co-ordinate their services will be caught by the provisions of the new clause, but they will not. I referred specifically to the problems that would arise if the case involved rigging fares or areas of service, or dividing up the market between operators. Even then, it has to be shown that such practices are against the public interest. Therefore, the hon. Lady is quite mistaken in her perception of the effect of this new clause.
Planned interchanges are beneficial and it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to decide in the first instance what is significant in the terms of that phrase, which I used in my earlier explanation of the purpose of the new clause.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman saying in effect that such decisions, which will have major implications for transport planning, are to be left entirely to the director general and that he will suddenly find himself constituting a detailed court of transport planning?

Mr. Mitchell: Almost all the industry is subject to the Office of Fair Trading and the legislation surrounding it. We are taking away the special, privileged position of the bus industry and making it like any other industry, in that it has to compete, and compete without cartelisation, price rigging and the other practices with which this new clause seeks to deal. The hon. Lady claimed that this was a hilarious new clause to introduce, but she gave no explanation of why it is hilarious to apply to the bus industry that which applies to all the industries in which hon. Members worked before they came here.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) claimed that two operators would be at risk for providing alternative services. In assessing the significance of any particular agreement, the director general will take a pragmatic approach. Clearly, the sort of practices about which the hon. Gentleman was referring will not get anybody into trouble.
The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) asked what brought about the train of thought that led to the introduction of the new clause at this stage. Partly, it was brought about by listening to Labour Members in Committee. That led us to recognise that many of them

were deep adherents to the concept of cartelisation and putting the public and the passenger low on the list of priorities.

Mr. Martin Flannery: What an abuse. The Minister should come to south Yorkshire.

Mr. Mitchell: I shall be happy to deal with the hon. Member and south Yorkshire at an appropriate moment. I am not sure that now is an appropriate moment, but if the hon. Gentleman makes a speech I am perfectly happy to reply to it.

Mr. Flannery: Come to south Yorkshire.

Mr. Mitchell: I have been to south Yorkshire. I shall happily reply to any point the hon. Gentleman makes because south Yorkshire is one of our major problems.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) talked about removing the power of local government to decide the level of subsidy. He knows that one thing. the Bill does in cross-subsidisation is take away from the bus operators their allocation of subsidies and put it into the hands of the local authority, which will decide which routes are necessary and which are not. There will be a new responsibility for local government and a new opportunity to co-ordinate looking after the public interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) dealt trenchantly with the case for competition, and I welcome his support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) asked particularly about the predatory pricing policies pursued by Midland Red in the trial area of Hereford and Worcester. The Competition Act will apply to deal with such a situation. The Director General of Fair Trading, in fulfilment of his powers under the Competition Act, is empowered to discuss with the parties, and if not satisfied to bring action against, any such activities.
It is a great pity in many ways that that part of the law was not brought to bear in the case of Hereford and Worcester. Had it been brought to bear, the number of new competitors would possibly be greater and doing well, because Midland Red could have been stopped by means of the Competition Act 1980. Nobody sems to have recognised that fact. I am glad of the opportunity to say that if in future anybody seeks to copy Midland Red by introducing predatory pricing to drive out competition, he will face the full weight of the Competition Act.

Mr. Craigen: The independent bus operators in Scotland are also concerned about the speed of action, lest they should go out of business before the Office of Fair Trading can dispose of their case. Will the Under-Secretary comment on that aspect of the interim interdict that is available under Scottish law, so that a breathing space can be made available to companies facing the situation that he described?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friends who come from north of the border inform me that the position is exactly the same as with the injunction procedure. Although I am of Scottish extraction, I am not resident in Scotland, so it would be dangerous if I tried to interpret Scottish law. However, I am assured on good authority that that is the case. I am interested to note the implicit support of the hon. Member for Maryhill for the Government's new clause. He has expressed anxiety that it will not be applied quickly enough. Therefore, he ought to join us in the Lobby if there is a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 153.

Division No. 215]
[5.45 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Aitken, Jonathan
Fallon, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Farr, Sir John


Amess, David
Favell, Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Arnold, Tom
Fletcher, Alexander


Ashdown, Paddy
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Franks, Cecil


Baldry, Tony
Freeman, Roger


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freud, Clement


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fry, Peter


Beggs, Roy
Gale, Roger


Beith, A. J.
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bendall, Vivian
Glyn, Dr Alan


Benyon, William
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorst, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Greenway, Harry


Blackburn, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Grist, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grylls, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Boysoa Dr Rhodes
Hanley, Jeremy


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hannam, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brinton, Tim
Harvey, Robert


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Haselhurst, Alan


Browne, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hawksley, Warren


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayes, J.


Budgen, Nick
Hayhoe, Barney


Bulmer, Esmond
Hayward, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butcher, John
Henderson, Barry


Butler, Hon Adam
Hickmet, Richard


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hirst, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cartwright, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Cash, William
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Howard, Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howells, Geraint


Cockeram, Eric
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Coombs, Simon
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cope, John
Irving, Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Jackson, Robert


Critchley, Julian
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dicks, Terry
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Kennedy, Charles


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Dunn, Robert
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkwood, Archy


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knox, David


Evennett, David
Lamont, Norman





Latham, Michael
Price, Sir David


Lawler, Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lawrence, Ivan
Raffan, Keith


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rathbone, Tim


Lester, Jim
Renton, Tim


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rhodes James, Robert


Lightbown, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lilley, Peter
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Luce, Richard
Roe, Mrs Marion


McCrindle, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Macfarlane, Neil
Rowe, Andrew


MacGregor, John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Maclean, David John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Madel, David
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Major, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Malins, Humfrey
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Malone, Gerald
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maples, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marland, Paul
Sims, Roger


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mather, Carol
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Maude, Hon Francis
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speed, Keith


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Merchant, Piers
Steen, Anthony


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stern, Michael


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Sumberg, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Donald (Caider V)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Tracey, Richard


Moynihan, Hon C.
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Neale, Gerrard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Needham, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Neubert, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Wall, Sir Patrick


Normanton, Tom
Wallace, James


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watson, John


Osborn, Sir John
Watts, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wheeler, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wiggin, Jerry


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Parris, Matthew
Wood, Timothy


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Pawsey, James
Yeo, Tim


Pollock, Alexander
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Porter, Barry



Portillo, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. Ian Lang.


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg



NOES


Abse, Leo
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Buchan, Norman


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Caborn, Richard


Barnett, Guy
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Campbell, Ian


Bell, Stuart
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Canavan, Dennis


Bermingham, Gerald
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bidwell, Sydney
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Blair, Anthony
Clay, Robert


Boyes, Roland
Clwyd, Mrs Ann






Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McNamara, Kevin


Cohen, Harry
McWilliam, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Marek, Dr John


Corbett, Robin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Martin, Michael


Cowans, Harry
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Craigen, J. M.
Maxton, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Meacher, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Michie, William


Deakins, Eric
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dobson, Frank
Nellist, David


Dormand, Jack
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dubs, Alfred
O'Brien, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
O'Neill, Martin


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Eastham, Ken
Park, George


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Patchett, Terry


Faulds, Andrew
Pike, Peter


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Prescott, John


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Radice, Giles


Fisher, Mark
Randall, Stuart


Flannery, Martin
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Forrester, John
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foster, Derek
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Foulkes, George
Robertson, George


Fraser, J, (Norwood)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rooker, J. W.


George, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Ryman, John


Godman, Dr Norman
Sedgemore, Brian


Golding, John
Sheerman, Barry


Gould, Bryan
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Gourlay, Harry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smith, C. (lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Snape, Peter


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Soley, Clive


Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Hoyle, Douglas
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


John, Brynmor
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Tinn, James


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wareing, Robert


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Weetch, Ken


Lamond, James
Welsh, Michael


Leighton, Ronald
White, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Litherland, Robert
Wilson, Gordon


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Winnick, David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Loyden, Edward



McCartney, Hugh
Tellers for the Noes:


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Mr. Sean Hughes and


McKelvey, William
Dr. Roger Thomas.


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

LONDON TAXI AND TAXI DRIVER LICENSING: APPEALS

'.℄(1) In this section℄
licence" means a licence under section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 (taxi licences) or under section 8 of that Act (taxi driver licences); and
licensing authority" means the person empowered to grant a licence.

(2) Where the licensing authority has refused to grant, or has suspended or revoked, a licence the applicant for, or (as the case may be) holder of. the licence may, before the expiry of the prescribed period℄

(a) require the authority to reconsider his decision: or
(b) appeal to a magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which he resides.

(3) Any call for a reconsideration under subsection (2) above must be made to the licensing authority in writing.

(4) On any reconsideration under this section the person calling for the decision to be reconsidered shall be entitled to be heard either in person or by his representative.

(5) If the person calling for a decision to be reconsidered under this secton is dissatisfied with the decision of the licensing authority on reconsideration, he may. before the expiry of the prescribed period, appeal to a magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which he resides.

(6) On any appeal to it under this section, a magistrates' court may make such order as it thinks fit; and any order which it makes shall be binding on the licensing authority.

(7) Where a person holds a licence which is in force when he applies for a new licence in substitution for it, the existing licence shall continue in force until the application for the new licence, or any appeal under this section in relation to that application, is disposed of.

(8) For the purposes of subsection (7) above, where the licensing authority refuses to grant the new licence the application shall not be treated as disposed of℄

(a) where no call for a reconsideration of the authority's decision is made under subsection (2) above, until the expiry of the prescribed period;
(b) where such a reconsideration is called for, until the expiry of the prescribed period which begins by reference to the decision of the authority on reconsideration.

(9) Where the licensing authority suspends or revokes a licence, or confirms a decision to do so, he may, if the holder of the licence so requests, direct that his decision shall not have effect until the expiry of the prescribed period.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause gives a right of appeal against the taxi licensing decisions of the assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police. The London taxi trade has wanted that for a long time and I feel sure that on this matter at least the House will agree that it is unjust that any authority should have the power to deny or remove the livelihood of a cab driver without there being a right of appeal. Elsewhere in England, Wales and Scotland there is a right of appeal against the decisions of taxi licensing authorities.
The assistant commissioner has said that he would welcome the establishment of a right of appeal against his decisions, as it would remove from him the burden of having the final say on whether a cab driver should be allowed to continue to make a living.
The House will see that the appeal procedure proposed in the new clause is similar to the one that exists for decisions by the traffic commissioner on PSV drivers' licences. There will be a period following a decision by the assistant commissioner during which an appeal may be made. The aggrieved party may require the assistant commissioner to reconsider his decision and will have the right to be heard personally. Alternatively, or if he remains dissatisfied with the decision or reconsideration, he may appeal to a magistrates court. The decision of the court shall be binding on the assistant commissioner.
Where a case involves the revocation or suspension of an existing licence, the assistant commissioner may, if the


holder requests it, direct that his decision will not have effect until the expiry of the appeal period or, if an appeal is made, until it has been disposed of.
Although we shall be reviewing all the Victorian, somewhat complex and certainly archaic taxi legislation, the new clause removes a genuine grievance which, I am sure the House will agree, should be corrected now.

Mrs. Dunwoody: This is a sensible provision, not least because so much of the Bill which affects taxis is neither sensible nor properly thought out. It has been an anomaly for a long time that the taxi trade in London has not had a right of appeal, and I accept what the Minister says about the protection that this provision will provide.
I assume that the trade has had detailed consultation with the Minister and that it is satisfied with the provision. After all, there are so many changes in the Bill that it is helpful to be able to welcome one of them that is a positive improvement rather than a retrograde step.
For example, let me draw attention to an article in the Evening Advertiser on Thursday 11 April which should be of interest to the Secretary of State. It says:
Cab war is in store".
It goes on to say:
A taxi war is brewing in Cirencester, with warnings of trouble and chaos from cab drivers. The row is over the taxi spaces in the market place. Three owner-drivers have operated from the rank for the last 15 years as the Cirencester Taxi Rank Association.
One wonders whether they have consulted the Secretary of State and whether they had a better reception than those people who were talking about losing their only buses into Cirencester early in the morning.
The article goes on:
The three drivers are furious because they had to buy into the Association when they joined. Denis Gill said: 'It cost us £1,000 when we came here. The telephone and sign were all paid for by the Association.' Fellow cabby Mike Goddard said: 'This letter from the council means that anyone can just come here and operate as a taxi. Its going to be chaos. You could get up to 18 motors fighting for the two spaces.' The Market Place drivers have already had one confrontation with drivers from Cirencester radio cabs who produced the council's letter and then parked on the rank.
The reality of much of the Bill that refers to taxis is that there will be precisely that kind of punch-up. It is only rough justice that it should be happening in the constituency of the Secretary of State who is responsible for the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the thought, if there is any, behind it and for a mad commitment to the opposite of transport planning, which, in his case, seems to represent transport chaos. He is responsible for the absolute shambles that will occur not just in the taxi trade but also in the bus trade if the Bill becomes law.
Cab war in Cirencester will be followed by bus war, followed by general chaos. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not misunderstand me when I tell him that I hope that his information about taxi legislation is more accurate than his information about the Blackpool trams.
Having said that, we happily welcome any provision that will give an appeal procedure to taxi drivers, who, in any event, will be badly affected.

6 pm

Mr. Vivian Bendall: I gather that the new clause deals with a right of appeal for taxi drivers in London and has nothing to do with Cirencester. This

provision is long overdue. When I came to the House in 1978 I began campaigning for London taxi drivers to have a right of appeal against the revoking of licences.
There can be few instances in our legislation —indeed, in our very constitution—where people do not have a right of appeal. This measure rectifies an anomaly that has been in existence for perhaps 300 years, going back well before the Carriage Acts of last century.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Did the hon. Gentleman intend in due course to declare his interest in the taxi trade? Although we are in agreement on this issue, he will appreciate that, as a general rule, hon. Members should know when those among us are speaking for particular groups of people.

Mr. Bendall: If I need to declare an interest in the taxi trade, I do so, although I have said repeatedly in the House when challenged by Opposition Members on the same point that I have no financial arrangement with, or receive any inducement from, the licensed taxi trade. I assure the hon. Lady that if I did have such an advantage, I should have declared it in the proper quarter.
I congratulate the Minister on correcting an anomaly that has existed for far too long. It is greatly welcomed by the London taxi trade. The new clause has been introduced after full consultation with representatives of that trade, for which I thank my right hon. Friend. This legislation will bring the licensed taxi trade into line with the position as it should be in a democratic society.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) for his kind remarks and, unusually, I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for her comment about this being a sensible provision. She went on to spoil it by quoting something in connection with Cirencester, an area which has nothing to do with the assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police. The hon. Lady accused me of being inaccurate. She put before the House one of the most inaccurate pieces of geography imaginable. However, I suspect that we are in agreement on this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

COMPULSORY PARTICIPATION IN TRAVEL CONCESSION SCHEMES

'(1) Arrangements made in pursuance of a travel concession scheme under section 85 of this Act with any operator of a registered local service qualifying for fuel duty grant may require the operator to give notice, of such length and in such manner as may be provided by the arrangements, before withdrawing from participation in the scheme.
(2) Subject to subsection (5) below, where arrangements so made include such a requirement, the operator in question shall be obliged to provide travel concessions in accordance with the arrangements until he gives notice of withdrawal in accordance with the arrangements and the period of notice has expired
(3) The authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme may at any time by notice in writing served on any operator of a registered local service qualifying for fuel duty grant (including an operator already participating in the scheme) impose on him an obligation to participate in the scheme in respect of any such service operated by him to which the notice applies, to be effective as from a date immediately following the end of such period as may be specified in the notice.

A notice under this subsection is referred to below in this section and in sections (Further provisions with respect to participation notices) and (Supplementary provisions) of this Act as a participation notice.

(4) Subject to subsection (5) below and section (Further provisions with respect to participation notices) of this Act, where a participation notice is served on any such operator, he shall be obliged, as from the date immediately following the end of the period specified in the notice in accordance with subsection (3) above, to provide any travel concessions required by the scheme on journeys on any service to which the notice applies either—

(a) in accordance with any arrangements agreed between that operator and the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme before that date; or
(b) in default of any such agreement, in accordance with the arrangements currently applicable to reimbursement of operators participating in the scheme or to any class of such operators to which that operator belongs.

(5) An obligation imposed on any operator by subsection (2) or (4) above shall, except as provided by the following provisions of this section, cease to apply in relation to that operator by virtue of the requirement mentioned in subsection (2) above or (as the case may be) by virtue of the participation notice mentioned in subsection (4) above if, following—

(a) in a case within subsection (2) above, the making of the arrangements including that requirement; or
(b) in a case within subsection (4) above, the date there mentioned;

there is any variation of the travel concession scheme in question or of the arrangements applicable to reimbursement of operators participating in the scheme or to any class of such operators to which that operator belongs.

(6) Where it is proposed—

(a) to vary a scheme under section 85 of this Act; or
(b) to vary the arrangements for the time being applicable to reimbursement of operators participating in any such scheme or of any class of such operators which consists of or includes operators of registered local services qualifying for fuel duty grant;

the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme may, not less than such period before the variation is to take effect as may be prescribed, by notice served on any operator of any such service who is eligible to participate in the scheme require him to indicate, within such period and in such manner as may be prescribed, whether or not he is willing to participate or (as the case may be) to continue to participate in the scheme after the variation takes effect.

(7) Where in pursuance of subsection (6) above an operator indicates that he is willing to participate or (as the case may be) to continue to participate in the scheme after the variation takes effect, that variation shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (5) above.

(8) Where the authority responsible for administration of a scheme under section 85 of this Act is a Passenger Transport Executive, the exercise by the Executive of the power to serve a participation notice on any operator shall require the consent of the Passenger Transport Authority for the Executive's area.'. — [Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient for the House to consider at the same time the following: New clause 11 — Further provisions with respect to participation notices.
New clause 10— Supplementary provisions.
New clause 16 — Enforcement of participation in travel concession schemes.
Government amendments Nos. 96, 99, 100, 101, 103 and 111.

Mr. Ridley: In Committee, a number of hon. Members expressed concern that there should be a mechanism available to local authorities in cases where they considered that the participation of an operator in a concessionary fares scheme was necessary but that operator was unwilling or downright recalcitrant. The Government appreciated that the purely voluntary participation of operators might in some cases leave gaps in the coverage of schemes whose benefits ought to be available either more widely or throughout their area.
We undertook to bring forward amendments on Report to honour our commitment to give councils a discretionary power to insist that operators should opt in unless, through some special appeal mechanism, good reason could be shown why they should not. Some Opposition Members greeted our reaffirmation of this commitment with the utmost scepticism. But today the mechanism is before us, and it will be interesting to see whether the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) acknowledges that we have delivered.
Under these new clauses, an authority may serve notice on recalcitrant operators, who will be bound to provide the travel concessions required. The clauses also give authorities powers to require operators who are participating voluntarily to give advance notice of any intention of withdrawal. This will allow authorities to ensure continuity of provision by serving a notice obliging continued participation. There is also a mechanism for the operator to apply to me or my successors, on grounds which are quite specific. to have the notice cancelled.
I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that it would be wrong to compel operators to enter into arrangements which were onerous, inappropriate or unfair. If the Secretary of State finds that the terms of the scheme or of reimbursement are inappropriate, not just for the appellant but for all operators in that position, he must spell out the aspects of the scheme which led him to that view.
New clause 16 makes it a criminal offence for an operator who is under an obligation—perhaps having appealed, or perhaps not—to provide concessions to fail systematically to do so. If an operator accepts a participation notice, or if the Secretary of State determines that it should take effect, he cannot be allowed then to refuse with impunity to provide the travel concessions.
I hope that all hon. Members are now satisfied that we have kept our word and that they will support these amendments. I hope, too, that this will bring to an end the insinuation or scurrilous rumours that have been spread by Labour supporters that concessionary fares schemes will come to an end or in some way be affected by the Bill. They are affected by the Bill in that they are made more comprehensive on all operators. To have acknowledgement of that from Labour Members would give my hon. Friends and I great pleasure.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The new clauses and associated amendments arise out of a commitment given by the Secretary of State in Committee in March, when he said:
It should be a matter of opting out of the scheme rather than opting in, Therefore, I undertake to table an amendment, or possibly a new clause, on Report to meet that requirement".— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 March 1985; c. 668.]
We have four new clauses and a number of amendments, the net effect of which is to place on the statute book a great deal of verbiage which barely conceals the Secretary of State's reluctance to give effect to his undertaking.

Mr. Ridley: Shame

Mrs. Dunwoody: The spirit of the Secretary of State's comments about concessionary fares is exemplified by the fact that subsection (1) of new clause 9, which is entitled
Compulsory participation in travel concession schemes",
specifies that schemes may lay down conditions and that the operator may withdraw, which is hardly what we would call an enthusiastic and positive approach. Subsection (2) goes on to say:
where arrangements so made include such a requirement, the operator in question shall be obliged to provide travel concessions in accordance with the arrangements until he gives notice of withdrawal
That seems to be a "put up with the children, the elderly and the disabled until you find an excuse not to do so" attitude.

Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Lady at this early stage put us out of our misery and tell us whether she will thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for bringing forward this measure which was requested in Committee? We are waiting to hear whether the hon. Lady welcomes its inclusion in the Bill.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand the hon. Gentleman's passion to know what I think about these matters, so I shall do my best to satisfy his interest. The Secretary of State did not want to bring this concession forward. He has brought forward a small concession and still has not answered the real question concerning the funding of these schemes. We have been offered a poor substitute for the proper concessionary fare schemes which are applied by many local authorities who believe that such schemes are not a way of filling empty seats when it happens to suit the operator. Many people in local government and throughout the country see concessionary fare schemes as a means of changing the lives of those most in need of the freedom to travel, including the elderly and the disabled —those in need of the right to get out of their homes and not feel trapped by their poverty or inability to move about.
I am thinly convinced that not only the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) but the Secretary of State regard concessionary fare schemes as an irritation which they have had to consider because of the pressure put on them in Committee. The clauses which have now been brought forward do not show that, even at this late stage, the Government are prepared to discuss seriously how the schemes should be funded or to say that their suggestions will be an adequate alternative to what exists.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire may regard it as a political point for me to say that I am not flinging myself upon the kindness of the Secretary of State and saying how grateful I am to him for the crumbs that fall from his rich table. I shall explain why. Concessionary fares should be provided to people as a right. They have contributed to the economy throughout their working lives, and they have the right to be able to move about, not to be subjected to a substitute scheme under which they receive any old token that happens to be available from an authority which can manage to scrape up sufficient funds from its rate-capped finances to provide an alternative. I am sorry if the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire does not like that point. That confirms me in my view that what we are offered is inadequate.

Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Lady therefore tell the House the Labour party's plans for the concessionary fare

schemes, the level at which she would like them imposed and the mechanism that she would use to impose them? Will she not just wrongly criticise what the Government are doing but state her alternatives?

Mrs. Dunwoody: If the Secretary of State would like to listen to the rest of my speech, he might discover what I think is wrong with his legislation.

Mr. Ridley: Oh.

Mrs. Dunwoody: "Oh," says the Secretary of Sate. Even though the Labour party might find itself at the end of two years with no public transport system of any size to talk about, he thinks that Labour Members should today say, "We can somehow weld the independent operators into a scheme that will provide concessionary fares." I shall give the Secretary of State one undertaking. I hope that he will accept it because it is meant in the kindest way. I believe in public transport. I use it, and I know what it means to those who are unable to afford a motor car or to those who are but do not always have one available. A Labour Government will restore a public transport system to this country because the Labour party understands the importance of such a system and would not simply look at it in terms of the cost of the bus subsidy. A Labour Government would look at transport questions in wider social ways, not merely in terms of the cash implications.

Mr. Ridley: It really will not do for the hon. Lady to dodge the question that I asked her and to answer unspecifically a completely different one which has nothing to do with the subject we are debating — concessionary fares. I asked her whether her party will in this legislation or in a wider context change the arrangements that this Government have made. The hon. Lady had dodged that question by saying that it is not really for her to say, two years before an election, what she would do. After criticising this Government's actions, the hon. Lady should state the way in which she would change the schemes.

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is clear that the Secretary of State is frightened that we are actually discussing his concessionary fares, because he does not want to talk about what his legislation states. I repeat: in two years from now, we may not have a public transport system that is recognisable by that name. My party intends when in government to set up concessionary fare schemes that will restore to the elderly, the disabled and those most in need a scheme that genuinely allows them to travel freely. If that means going back to proper passes, and not the absurdity of tokens and insisting on inadequate schemes of the type that will inevitably arise from the chaos and nonsense entailed by the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will find that the general public will rapidly understand the difference between our proposals and what he plans.

Mr. Harry Cowans: My hon. Friend should remind the Secretary of State that we are questioning his legislation. She should ask him why his Government saw fit to undertake to underwrite concessionary fares in the London Regional Transport Bill. Perhaps she will also ask him why, in the grant-related expenditure, 50 per cent. is the level of concessionary fares. Is that the Government's standard?

Mrs. Dunwoody: My hon. Friend reminds us of the basic point that the Secretary of State was forced by


London Members to write in an undertaking to protect concessionary fares in that earlier Bill. I do not know for how many sittings the House considered this point or how many words were spoken on it in Committee, but it must have been a great many. Not once was the Secretary of State prepared to give an undertaking in this legislation that he would underwrite concessionary fares. Not once was he prepared to write into this Bill a similar guarantee to the one that he wrote into the London Regional Transport Bill. The reason is simple—he did not intend the rest of the country to have proper concessionary fares schemes. The right hon. Gentleman knows that.

Mr. Don Dixon: Although the Secretary of State did not give that undertaking in Committee, his hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) gave the game away when he suggested that the Tory policy on concessionary fares was for bus companies to make a profit before considering granting concessionary fares to the old and disabled. Before these private entrepreneurs can deal with the disabled or the old, they must first make a profit. Under the Government's policy during the next two years, until all these entrepreneurs make a profit, the disabled, the blind and the old-age pensioners will be prisoners in their homes.

Mrs. Dunwoody: There is no doubt that this is the thought behind the whole of the Government's attitude towards concessionary fare schemes. The concession was given reluctantly. It was not a genuine underwriting of concessionary fares. The Secretary of State has never been prepared to discuss the fact that it will be extremely difficult for rate-capped authorities to find the money necessary for genuine concessionary fare schemes. He has never discussed the financial implications, preferring to say that this is a matter for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Ridley: I have asked the hon. Lady twice what her policy is and the rather pathetic attempts of the hon. Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) and for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) do not obscure the point. The hon. Lady went so far as to say that a Labour Government would enable elderly people to travel "freely", but she did not say that they would travel free. Why is she so shy about answering my question? The only conclusion that one can draw is that she is not prepared to go one inch beyond the Government's position.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am flattered that the right hon. Gentleman regards my undertakings as so much more genuine and real than his own. He may not be Secretary of State next year, let alone for another two years. [Interruption.] Let us not be too unkind. He may make it to the autumn but not far beyond that, especially once this legislation becomes law. The effects of the Bill will be so wide ranging that we may have to create an entirely new public transport system, but if the Secretary of State is so worried I will give this undertaking. A Labour Government would regard the provision of concessionary fare schemes as one of the first priorities in transport policy. That is as firm as anyone can expect me to be at this stage. Unlike the Secretary of State, however, I can give a further guarantee. Under a Labour Government there will be a public transport system for old-age

pensioners to travel on. The right hon. Gentleman has been careful not to claim that that will be the case after two years of the chaos and bewilderment that will inevitably result from this legislation.
Let us now consider the right hon. Gentleman's new clause, which he is anxious to obscure even further. Subsection (3) finally reaches the original objective—an authority may require an operator to participate in a concessionary fares schemes by serving a participation notice upon him. Participation notices are dealt with in new clause 11. New clause 10 provides the framework. Some authorities are very worried about the way in which this insistence will work. It is a pity that there is no blackboard, as I have a marvellous flow chart showing what will happen. It is clear that some authorities will have to go through the most complicated procedure if they want to operate a concessionary fare scheme under clause 85. I shall not bother the House with all the highly complex implications, but it will certainly not be simple to produce a workable, sensible scheme with a number of different operators. Inevitably, those most in need of concessionary passes will be affected by that.
The Secretary of State has created an extremely complex appeals procedure. As he is so keen to answer questions, perhaps he will tell us why the traffic commissioners, rather than the Secretary of State, cannot act in disputes as arbiters between local authorities and operators. The commissioners will have that role in relation to traffic regulation conditions — a matter in which they are arguably less expert.
Subsection (4) provides that an operator is to provide concessions in accordance with his individual agreement or with any general conditions applying to this scheme, unless subsection (5) applies and the operator has managed to find a way out of the scheme altogether. That being so, it is scarcely surprising that we do not regard this as the best thing since sliced bread.
Subsection (6) allows an operator, on receiving notice of a variation, to find yet another way out. Subsection (7) provides that if an operator
is willing to participate or … to continue to participate in the scheme after the variation takes effect
the cop-out in subsection (5) will not apply.
Subsection (8) requires the passenger transport authority to give its consent to the passenger transport executive before a participation notice is served. Presumably the Secretary of State believes that there is just a chance that the executive will have misinterpreted the authority's policy on concessionary fares and he wishes to give the operator further protection from the dreaded participation notice.
In Committee, the Secretary of State dredged up the word "otiose", meaning redundant and unnecessary, to describe some of the legislation that he had been sitting on for years. Much of what is said in the new clauses is also otiose. Despite the grudging attitude that they display, however, there is no option but to accept that half a loaf is better than no bread. Nevertheless, we should make it clear who will be affected. In the six metropolitan counties alone, more than 1· million people are covered by concessionary travel arrangements. Pensioners travel free of charge at off-peak times in four of the metropolitan counties and travel passes are provided. In Greater Manchester and in west Yorkshire they travel at half fare or at a flat rate throughout the day. The physically disabled


are entitled to similar concessions throughout the day and the blind travel free throughout the day in all metropolitan counties.
Concessionary travel payments for 1984–85 are expected to exceed £100 million — almost half the aggregate VLS. Widely differing methods apply to the calculation of concessionary travel payments. Greater Manchester will be required to find between £12 million and 14 million. Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that a rate-capped authority will be able to make good a gap of that size? Of course he is not. What he really intends is clear from the figures that he has given for the amount to be spent on transport this year. He intends that there should be a direct cut in the amount available. He knows that authorities will find it extremely difficult to underwrite the sums required by the changes proposed in the Bill. Any authority or group of authorities can establish travel concesssion schemes, but they will find it very difficult to fund them and many existing schemes will be severely damaged.
Throughout our discussions on the Bill, the Secretary of State has said that it is entirely up to the local authority to decide not just on the type of scheme but on the way in which it is administered. Even with the minimal conditions included in the Bill, it is clear that, instead of useful bus passes and access to transport almost all day, many people will suddenly be offered an inferior system. It may involve tokens, which are easily used up and do not allow as many journeys as the present passes. In addition, the provision currently made by the larger authorities may well not be replaced when individual operators take over the services and, due to their size, cannot provide the same type of scheme or even the same kind of vehicle.
I do not believe that the new clauses genuinely undenvrite the type of scheme required by the elderly and the disabled. At best, they are a smokescreen for the Secretary of State, who did not want to write anything into the Bill. He could easily have given an undertaking to ensure continuation of the present level of concessionary fare schemes, but, for one simple reason, he did not want to do that. To him, transport is simply a matter of pounds, shillings and pence and concessionary passes are merely a way to provide, grudgingly, a lower standard of service when it suits him and at times when he cannot get enough fare-paying passengers. The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) made that clear in Committee. To the Conservative Government, concessionary fare schemes are an indulgence and an extravagance, and should be abolished.

Mr. Dixon: In fairness to the Secretary of State, will my hon. Friend acknowledge one point? When the question about private operators taking part in the scheme was first raised in Committee—it was raised by some Conservative Members as well as by my hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends — the Secretary of State suggested that the private entrepreneurs should not pick up the old-age pensioners and the disabled, in case the prospect of a full load of full fares should be jeopardised, and that a ghost service should be run alongside to pick them up. The present suggestion, although wholly inadequate, is a massive improvement on the original one.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I accept that. However, there is no provision for the mentally handicapped, and throughout

the Committee stage the Secretary of State consistently refused to accept many of the amendments that would have dealt with the problems of the disabled. It is clear that adequate schemes will be replaced by token schemes. The Bill in no way provides a proper service for the disabled or for those most in need.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Surely the hon. Lady is not suggesting a special bus service for the mentally handicapped. Of course one must provide services for those less fortunate than the very fit and healthy, but surely the hon. Lady is not suggesting that there should be a special bus service for all the disadvantaged.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Listening to the hon. Member for South Hams one would not believe that he had been a member of the Committee. Even though he appeared only briefly after dinner from time to time, I would have thought that even he was present when we debated at great length the changes that would have to be made to the Bill to safeguard the interests of the disabled. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman should try to divert attention away from the complete inadequacy of the scheme.

Mr. Flannery: I am familiar with the sheer arrogance and contempt of the Secretary of State. I once described him—he has got worse since then—as the only hon. Member in the House who could strut sitting. We are falling far behind when even the poverty-stricken Republic of Ireland has concessionary fares on everything except aircraft. Many countries are miles ahead of us. Even the Labour party should take note of that. The Government will take us back a long way. I do not know how they can defend what they are doing. We tried private enterprise and it failed. That is why we municipalised and nationalised public transport.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State knows exactly what he is doing. He has given us figures. In case anyone missed them, I will repeat them. The public expenditure White Paper shows a reduction in actual expenditure on concessionary fares from £245 million in 1984–85 to £197 million planned for 1985–86. That is almost 20 per cent.

Mr. Ridley: rose —

Mrs. Dunwoody: Public transport in metropolitan areas will be rate-capped. It is clear that there will be a reduction in the availability of concessionary fares in metropolitan areas.

Mr. Ridley: If I may say so, that is a piece of deliberate deception. The true figures are as follows: for 1982–83, a provision of £163 million; for 1983–84, £173 million; for 1984–85, £188·5 million, and for 1985–86, £197 million. There is an ever-increasing total. The outturn in each case is greater than the provision, but the hon. Lady compared the provision with the outturn. She did not say that she was confusing the figures. I invite her to withdraw what can only be described as a deliberate deception.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State should tell us himself what the changes were. Let him give us the figures. They are his figures. They were produced by his Department.
Concessionary fares will suffer under the Bill. There has been a slight concession. If the operators cannot find a way out—and, by heaven, there are enough ways of


getting out of the schemes if the determination exists to do so—the independent operators will have to comply. In no way will that concession protect the public. When travel conditions deteriorate, the public will make its judgment.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The House might well wish to award to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) an Oscar for outrage. Her response to the new clauses is as ungracious and mealy-mouthed as it could be.
The hon. Lady has tried to play down the contribution made by the Secretary of State in Committee. It has become evident from the hon. Lady's speeches throughout the four months of the debates on the Bill that she knows very little about public transport. When referring to the Secretary of State's undertaking, she omitted to recall that he had said:
I am not resisting the principle of the amendment— I would undertake to meet the spirit of my hon. Friend's amendment"— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 March 1985; c. 668.]
If the hon. Lady had mentioned that, she might have received a different response from the House.
Much later in the Standing Committee proceedings we debated clause 85, and this humble Member suggested a five-line amendment. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave us a full undertaking. Indeed, I was able to say that I could not have wished for a more fulsome undertaking. Some Labour Members did not understand the word "fulsome", so I had to spell it out.
Conservative Members are very grateful for the way in which the matter has been handled. However, I thought that I had said in five lines what was necessary. That what was said in five lines in Committee now requires 150 lines demonstrates what fun the parliamentary draftsmen and the lawyers have in this place.
The hon. Lady has made considerable play of the value of concessionary fares in general, but she has failed to respond to the Secretary of State's request for her own specific views. We became used to that in Committee. Our understanding is that concessionary fares — whether tokens, passes, or off-peak passes — currently vary between £20 and £80 in value from the most generous to the least generous authority that offers them. The fair city of Nottingham seems to take a central place in terms of its generosity as well as geographically. Our concessionary fares scheme—free pass, off-peak—is currently valued at £48.
Perhaps in this case one could speak of a blanket subsidy, although blanket benefit may be the better phrase. A blanket benefit may be described as generous, but it usually means that those who are in need do not get enough while those who are not in need receive a benefit that they could do without. Conservative Members have often been worried about such benefits. This, however, is one of those benefits which satisfy everybody. It confers a benefit and fulfils the needs of a group of people who, as the hon. Lady said, can claim to be entitled to it, at a value that I doubt any Chancellor of the Exchequer could equal.
For less than £1 a week, we can give senior citizens in greater Nottingham the mobility of which the hon. Lady spoke so passionately. There is no way in which the Chancellor, by giving pensioners an extra £1 a week, could confer such a benefit. Even in our fairly compact city, £1

a week in cash would mean that somebody who lives comparatively close to the centre of Nottingham could make three or four return journeys a week whereas somebody who lives further out might be able to make only one. The system is excellent value for money and benefits senior citizens. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for accepting the spirit of the amendment that we tabled in Committee. I could not have wished for a more fulsome undertaking from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.
It is right that the Bill does not set down a mechanism by which concessionary travel should be provided. I am satisfied that the system will vary in different parts of the country. I believe fervently in the concessionary pass system, but there are parts of the country for which the token system is better. It is right, therefore, that local authorities should be allowed to choose a system that suits local needs. Local authorities and operators must be able to fix the value of a pass clearly and fairly.

Mr. Steen: I should merely like to repeat what I said in Committee. Neither side of the House has a monopoly on compassion. The proposals for concessionary fares are as fair as possible and it is wrong for the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) to imply that it is the Labour party's prerogative to protect the weak and the handicapped. New clause 9 gives such groups as much protection as they had before.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party seems also to believe that if it bobs up and down and tables new clauses saying that if would provide this, that and the other, it has expressed its sincerity. Labour Members know full well that what matters is the practicality, not the volume of words used.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Would the hon. Gentleman like to remind the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) that it was he who said that, before concessionary fares should be offered to the elderly, independent operators would have to make a profit? It was he who said that, much as such operators would want to help the elderly, they would have to make a profit before being able to consider them. How many of the areas where no concessionary fares are provided are Conservative controlled?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It was monstrous that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) was criticised in his absence from the Committee—

Mrs. Dunwoody: He was never there.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: —and that he was not given an opportunity to repeat what he said in Committee which, taken in the round, was quite different from what the hon. Lady has suggested. As to the hon. Lady's second question, I do not know how many authorities do not provide for the elderly, nor do I know whether all or any of them are Conservative controlled. I hope, however, that when the Bill is on the statute book all local authorities will respond to my right hon. Friend's generous provisions.

Mr. Caborn: Is the hon. Gentleman recommending to the Secretary of State that the concessionary fares system in the city of Nottingham should be the minimum in the rest of the country? Does he agree that some local authorities, because of rate capping, will have difficulty in supporting concessionary fares? We have just gone


through one round of rate capping and the next one might involve considerably more local authorities who will have enormous trouble supporting schemes such as that in Nottingham, which I gather is free.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I can confirm that the scheme in Nottingham is free, off-peak. As the generosity of the scheme is about average, I hope that it is an example of schemes that my right hon. Friend would be more than happy to approve. He will be able to comment later.
Rate capping is the only shot left in the Labour party's locker. Few, if any, local authorities would be unable to provide a scheme such as we have in Nottingham if they cut out some of their ridiculous spending and applied the rules of normal prudent housekeeping.

Mr. Ridley: If any local authority controlled by the Labour party cared a fig for old people — I do not believe that many of them do; they care for their votes —they would never mention rate capping because they would make it their priority to support a concessionary fares scheme at the expense of almost any other rubbish that they might spend money on.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. He has, as we say, scored a bullseye. Indeed, it was the Conservatives who introduced the scheme in the city of Nottingham.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Should not the hon. Member be retorting to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it was in Birmingham in 1955 that, in the case of Prescott v. Birmingham Corporation, the local authority was banned from operating a concessionary fares scheme? It took 10 years until a Labour Government were in power to rescind that judgment. An Act of Parliament of a Labour Government introduced concessionary travel.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman has said. The law was as it was at the time of the case in Birmingham. It is to the credit of the Labour Government at that time that they changed the law. However, one could say that about almost anything that comes before Parliament: we change law because we perceive the law or the existing situation to be unacceptable.

Mr. Wareing: But the Conservative Government did not do it in 1955.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: There are many things that Governments do not do. There are just so many hours in the day, and we are demonstrating very ably just how long we can take over the most acceptable clauses in the Bill.

Mr. Parris: Will my hon. Friend ask himself how it can be that Sheffield, under rate capping, feels that it cannot afford a concessionary fares scheme yet at the same time can afford £16,000 a year for an anti-nuclear co-ordinating officer?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Opposition Members may say, "Ah, yes, but you can't provide a concessionary fares scheme for just £16,000", but I am certain that, if one went through the Sheffield books, one would discover countless instances of such amounts which, put together, would provide sufficient to fund a concessionary fares scheme.

Mr. Ridley: I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. Friend, who perhaps too readily agreed with the hon.

Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). My hon. Friend might like to know that in 1955 legislation was introduced by the Conservative Government to give powers to municipal authorities, including Nottingham, to grant concessionary fares immediately after the judgment to which the hon. Member for West Derby referred.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for correcting my ignorance. I trust, therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the hon. Member for West Derby catches your eye he will be gracious enough to accept that and withdraw his earlier remark.

Mr. Steen: I wish to put right the unfortunate slur which has been made too often with regard to the proceedings in Standing Committee in what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) tried to infer. Does my hon. Friend agree that we on the Government Benches, by accepting the principles behind the Bill, realise that private operators running without a subsidy have to run a profitable service? They cannot run an unprofitable service because they are not eligible for Government subsidy. Therefore, they have to be profitable. Only when they are profitable and are going concerns can they provide the much needed help from which the elderly, the mentally ill and others can benefit. Until the profit is there, unfortunately, they cannot provide the widescale facilities which the Opposition seek to have provided. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is concerned with the ability to make a profit? Does he also agree that under the Bill we hope to provide more facilities for a wider cross-section of people so that more people travel by bus and more profits will be made?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I see nothing untoward in the way that he puts his case. My hon. Friend is saying that one cannot offer an operator a concessionary fare scheme unless operators exist in the first place, and operators will not exist in the first place unless there is a mechanism by which they can operate. If that is what my hon. Friend seeks to say, I do not think that any hon. Member could question it. I say again that I think that my hon. Friend's name was grossly abused in his absence in Standing Committee.
There are two matters that I hope the Secretary of State will clarify in replying. When I set out in Standing Committee the scheme which operated in Nottingham, I said that the mechanism was under the control of the traffic commissioner. That scheme was agreed between the then local authority in 1967 or 1968 and the traffic commissioner, and that formula has remained ever since. In clause 11, it seems that the Secretary of State can designate somebody to act for him. I hope that I am not being presumptuous, but by implication that person appears to be the traffic commissioner. If that is so I think that nobody will regard that as unreasonable. It seems a sensible way forward.
New clause 16 seems to suggest that an operator can only be fined for failure to comply with the scheme. I hope that by implication that does not mean that, if an operator persistently abuses the facility of a concessionary fare scheme, the traffic commissioner will not have the power to take away his operator's licence. No one surely would wish to permit to remain in operation an undertaking that constantly infringes the scheme within the area of its activity. We owe it to the elderly and to the disabled who


will have passes to ensure that they are not persistently denied access to the buses in their area because there is an operator who flies close to the wind.
If indeed clause 16 is just one of the mechanisms, I suggest that clause 25 might be the mechanism by which a traffic commissioner could withdraw an operator's licence for persistent abuse of a scheme.

Mr. Cowans: I have been following closely the hon. Gentleman's speech, and up to now he has sounded more like the sheriff of Nottingham than Robin Hood. There is now a glorious opportunity for him to be Robin Hood. Would he at my invitation like to place on record a categorical assurance that the scheme that he has praised in Nottingham will be the same scheme after the Bill is enacted, because new clause 9 provides for opting out rather than opting in, which could be the death knell of the scheme that he has so greatly praised?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Standing Committee, and clearly has not bothered to read the report of the proceedings in Standing Committee. Nor has he bothered to read new clause 11. These four new clauses have to be taken in the round. It would not be possible for any one to stand alone. They are inter-related and inter-dependent. One cannot opt out under clause 9 if there is not a scheme and, if there is a scheme under clause 11, clause 9 would operate. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman is unable to understand that.

Mr. Cowans: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to tell his constituents that the scheme will still exist after the enactment of the Bill?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am perfectly happy to say that I am satisfied that the undertaking that the Secretary of State gave in Standing Committee and the undertaking that the Minister gave in Standing Committee were such that it would be impossible for them to renege on those undertakings under the clauses that they have included in the Bill and to stay in office. I do not have the power to give such an undertaking. That is a matter for Ministers and the law as it is. However, I believe that it is a reasonable assumption that the Bill allows local authorities to operate a concessionary fares scheme.
The Bill and the new clauses suggest to me that the scheme that we are running in Nottingham will also be allowed. As much as that scheme costs—£2·4 million—it is a sum of money that has bipartisan support in the city of Nottingham. It is a provision of first priority. It is entirely up to the local authority to decide whether it wants to run its affairs so badly that its highest priority, provision for the elderly, is at risk. I say to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) that, if the Conservatives control Nottingham, the commitment to the old-age pensioners will be honoured to the full. If Labour remains in control for much longer—some of the mad schemes that Labour representatives have up their sleeves might put that at risk—that is for the local authority, and the local authority alone. There is nothing that the Secretary of State can say or do that will change that.
I restate what I said at the beginning of my remarks. We had a long debate in Committee. We were given undertakings which have been honoured. My constituents and I and, I am sure, my hon. Friends are grateful to the Secretary of State.

7 pm

Mr. Stephen Ross: Although I recognise that the Secretary of State has fulfilled the promise to introduce new clauses that give some assurance to hon. Members that the concessionary fares schemes will continue, I think that he will agree that they are excessively complicated and full of qualifications. I wonder whether the question put by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) can be answered by the Secretary of State.
Subsection (6) of new clause 9 states:
Where it is proposed—

(a) to vary a scheme under section 85 of this Act".


In new clause 11, someone participating in a scheme has to give special reasons why his participation in the scheme would be inappropriate. Tomorrow we shall discuss amendment No. 97, which also refers to exemption from that obligation. New clause 16 refers to enforcement and a fine. I cannot help believing that somebody somewhere will find a way through that mire of legislation. If people have financial difficulties in maintaining the service, they may wish to use some of those ways out.
I can only bore the House with the experience that I have had over the past few months, which is driving me crazy, with regard to the provision of services by Sealink, which the Secretary of State privatised. In my constituency, it is part of the public transport system which links two sections of the railway system. The latest concession that has been withdrawn by Sealink is the half fare for service men. Men serving in the Royal Navy who live in my constituency have written to me complaining bitterly that whenever they wish to come on leave or visit home for a weekend they now have to pay full fares on Sealink whereas on the railway they have to pay only half fare. The railway gives a travel concession, but Sealink does not do so now. Also, visitors to the Isle of Wight who are unlucky enough to live near a station where they cannot buy a printed ticket that goes through a computer have to buy a separate ticket when they arrive at Portsmouth harbour. When there are hundreds of them and the boat is going in five minutes, that is no joke. Many of those people are writing to me.
I realise that I am off the point about concessionary bus fares, but that is an experience that I am now having with a private operator. I know that a commitment was not written into the sale, but a wish to maintain through booking was expressed. I pay tribute, as I did in Committee, to the role of the Minister when he tried to help put that right in April, when I pleaded with him over the Easter period. The through fare was withdrawn at the peak period of Easter. There is no legal obligation on the operator of Sealink to maintain the through fares.
The new clauses are complicated. Surely the provision could have been written in without all this verbiage. They are full of qualifications. I suggest that some operators will wish to find ways out. I know that they may be fined, but I hope that the Secretary of State will give us stronger assurances. He moved the new clause 9 very quickly. It and the others are complicated, and I find them difficult to understand. I am sure that other hon. Members do too, if they are honest about it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give stronger assurances that the clauses mean that if a concessionary fares scheme is operating at the moment, as far as he is aware, there is no earthly


reason why it should not be continued, and adequate finance will be provided to local authorities such as Nottingham so that they can maintain the scheme. Let us think again of the situation in London. It is what cities such as Nottingham and other great cities deserve. It was granted to London, and it should be granted to the rest of the country.

Mr. Peter Fry: I declared on the Second Reading my interest in the National Bus Company, but I happily declare it again.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State two fairly short questions about new clause 11. One concerns the use of the word "inappropriate" in subsection (3). It is an unusual word. Why has my right hon. Friend chosen it rather than "unreasonable"? If a participation notice were unreasonable, there could be quite clear reasons for it. For example, operators could be required to carry passengers with concessionary tickets at peak times, or the scheme may not sufficiently compensate the operator for the service provided. Therefore, would it not be better to use the word "unreasonable"? The word "inappropriate" seems slightly odd. For example, if there were a successor transport authority to South Yorkshire, it might impose some unreasonable conditions in the notice, which need not necessarily be inappropriate in terms of its own transport policy. I should like my right hon. Friend to answer that point.
Secondly, when participation notices are served, the operator might decide that the scheme is not appropriate for him, yet the local authority might still wish him to continue. I know that the new clause gives the operator the right to appeal, but the problem is that he could find himself operating at a considerable loss while that appeal procedure went through. I understand how the system works, and at the end either the notice is confirmed, in which case the operator must decide whether to carry on, or the appeal is allowed. Will my right hon. Friend explain why operators, who will presumably be running tight under his new regime, should have to run at what could be considerable financial losses? In the event of an appeal, will they receive compensation?

Mr. Pike: The new clauses are important because the threat to concessionary fares is the most serious threat in the Bill. In Committee, when we were assured that amendments would be made to take care of the points raised by Conservative Members, they accepted the assurances and withdrew their amendments. They believed that the Minister would come forward with some proposals to safeguard the position. At that stage my hon. Friends and I thought that they were being conned and buying a pig in a poke, and that they would not get genuine safeguards.
The hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and for South Hams (Mr. Steen) accepted those assurances, but the safeguards which are supposed to be included in these amendments show that they were not sincere about wishing to safeguard concessionary fares. These proposals take a short pace forward, but do not provide the type of security for concessionary fares that we wish.
Although I am prepared to accept that some Conservative Members may have a social conscience and believe that there should be some provision for the elderly and disabled, when the desire to meet that commitment is

set against the cash required, I know which they choose and where their judgment lies. During our debates on this important Bill, Conservative Members have shown themselves to care more about financial implications than about protecting services and concessionary fares.
I accept that the new clause is a slight improvement to the Bill, but it is only slight. If Conservative Members were sincere, they would have secured amendments to safeguard concessionary fares for people throughout the country on the same basis as those in London.

Mr. Ridley: Does the hon. Gentleman share my horror and aghast feeling that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was not prepared to tell the House what scheme her party would operate, if it were ever in government again, or even to guarantee that the present scheme would continue? Has the hon. Gentleman ever known such hypocrisy as that of the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, who doubt the Government's intentions about concessionary fares, and refuse point blank to answer my three questions about whether they have any plans to introduce anything better themselves, if they ever come to office?

Mr. Pike: There is no hypocrisy on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). If there is any, it is on the part of the Government, who say that they believe in concessionary fares but who do nothing to safeguard them. Whether the Secretary of State likes it or not, the Labour party is democratic. It will determine its policies at party conferences before we fight the next general election. No Secretary of State in a Labour Government would determine the policy. The opposite is true of the Conservative party, which formulates its policy after winning an election. The hypocrisy in this debates shown by the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends, who are not prepared to write into the Bill any safeguards to protect concessionary fares.
7.15 pm
In Committee, we requested that the Bill should include provisions for concessionary fares on the same basis as that which was forced on the Secretary of State in the London Regional Transport Act 1984. If they are good enough for London, they are good enough for my constituents, the people of Lancashire and the nation as a whole. That request was perfectly reasonable. Failing that, our fallback position of asking for an amendment to ensure that there would be no detriment to concessionary fare systems as a result of the Bill is absolutely reasonable. I do not conceive how any Conservative Member can debate this: issue without supporting such safeguards, if he genuinely believes that there should be concessionary fares.
In Committee, I drew attention to the fact that Hyndburn borough council was already preparing for the Bill, and had announced that 16 to 18-year-old students will no longer be eligible for concessionary fares. It said that concessionary fares could continue if the county council was prepared to meet the bill and pay the additional cost. That is nonsense. It is worth mentioning that that council is Conservative-controlled. However, if it continues to pursue that policy, it will not be Conservative-controlled for long.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South referred to many bad local government decisions. He shares the 'view of his hon. Friends that Labour authorities are extravagant,


wasteful and inefficient, but that is not true. It is a fallacy put about by Conservative Members and the Conservative party. Labour councils try to tackle the problems that face their communities, which they have been elected to do. Unfortunately, because of the financial restraints placed on them by the Government, they cannot tackle the problems to the extent that they would wish.
The implications of rate capping and penalties severely affect the future of concessionary fares. The question is not merely whether a local authority is rate-capped, but whether it receives a penalty as a result of overspending or raising an additional penny in the pound rate. The penalty can be equivalent to a 7p rate, and it is that which makes councils think carefully about what they can do.
It is not sufficient for the Secretary of State to say that local authorities have the right to provide concessionary fares, when he will not give them the money to do the job. It is strange that he says that local authorities should have the power to determine what concessionary fare schemes they should provide, when the Secretary of State for the Environment increasingly ties down local government with every act and statement that he makes. If the Secretary of State believes that local government should have the freedom to determine concessionary fares, he should say to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, "If that is the Government's policy on transport, why is it not their policy on the environment? Why do we not allow local authorities to determine their expenditure on all local services?"
The Secretary of State shows his insincerity on this issue by not being prepared to follow that line. We must put some safeguard in the Bill. However, having been a member of the Committee and having read the Second Reading debate, I doubt whether any amendments will come from the Government to provide the guarantees that are needed.
Although the new clauses are a slight improvement, they are extremely difficult to understand, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said, and will not give the protection to concessionary fares that we would wish. If the Secretary of State, his colleagues in the Department and Conservative Members want the disabled, the blind, the elderly and others to continue to enjoy concessionary fares, even at this late stage, they should introduce suitable amendments to protect such fares. However, I believe that they will not. The procedure involved in the new clauses will be extremely difficult to administer. Although the Secretary of State will not accept it, most of us recognise that local authorities will almost certainly be forced to use tokens as a result of the Bill. Most hon. Members must recognise that tokens are not the most suitable form of concessionary fares, and that the pass is a much better system.
Lancashire county council has made great strides in co-ordinating all the concessionary fare systems in the county. The chairman of the county council's transport committee wishes Lancashire to merge its schemes with those in Greater Manchester and Merseyside, so that those who live in the north-west can enjoy much wider concessionary travel. That will be a tremendous step forward. However, when the Bill is enacted, such steps forward will become more difficult to introduce. There will almost certainly be reductions, not improvements, in the provision of concessionary fares.
Although we hear words of sympathy from Conservative Members, we have yet to see them vote to support their words. I doubt whether, when we vote later on other issues, any Conservative Member will have the courage to support protection for concessionary fares.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said more than once that it was not only pressure from Labour Members in Committee on the London Regional Transport Act 1984 which forced the Secretary of State to make a concession. There was also pressure from Conservative Members, who had the courage not only to utter words of sympathy but to vote when it mattered.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Conservative manifesto stated that concessionary fares would be protected, which is why those hon. Members voted as they did.

Mr. Pike: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. It is hard to imagine that the Conservative party tried to honour some of the pledges in its election manifesto, but I accept his assurance that Conservative Members did so on that occasion. If the Conservative Members of that Committee had not been prepared to support what they believed and to tell the Secretary of State, "If you do not protect concessionary fares in London, we will not support the Bill," it would have gone through unaltered. If Conservative Members had had the same courage in respect of this Bill, we could have been debating amendments much more meaningful than the present ones, which, while they may satisfy Conservative Members, do not satisfy me and my hon. Friends.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I do not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) that it will be impossible in Lancashire to operate a system other than tokens. In half of my constituency, tokens are used; the only snag is that many people cannot use them, either because there is no rural bus service or because they are too disabled to get on the buses. Therefore, my constituents will welcome the fact that, in future, they can use their tokens on regular taxi routes.
In my constituency, it is essential to have concessionary fares, for the simple reason that existing bus fares are extremely high. For example, it costs £2–10 to get from Lancaster to Abbeystead, and £1–90 to get from Pilling to Garstang. A great problem is that, when one gets to the centres of population, one cannot get back home because the buses leave so quickly. That means that passengers must rush to do their shopping and certainly cannot pause to have coffee or tea with their friends. There is a mad scramble to get back. However, when they can use their tokens for taxis, their visit will be more leisurely. They may go to the town by bus, as they do now, but they can use their tokens to return home.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: No; I have finished.

Mr. Bob Clay: Conservative Members, led by the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, have taken another step in a cynical and fraudulent conspiracy to mislead pensioners and to give the impression that something is being done, whereas they know perfectly well by now — the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) gave the game


away—that what they are doing with the new clauses is saying to local authorities, "We give you the licence to do the impossible if you can find out how to do the impossible." Nothing in the clauses explains how local authorities will continue to fund the good schemes that exist now.
It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, in an almost throwaway remark, say that if some authorities would stop wasting section 137 money, they would be able to fund concessionary fare schemes. Given that the maximum spending under section 137 is the equivalent of a 2p rate, that gives us some idea of the Mickey Mouse notion of concessionary travel—

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that, in the city of Nottingham, the 2p rate raises just under £l million? I understand that in the county of Nottinghamshire it raises three times that amount. Although he may believe that that is Mickey Mouse money, I do not, and I doubt whether anyone else in the Chamber does.

Mr. Clay: The hon. Gentleman explained that the present, somewhat limited concessionary travel scheme in Nottingham cost £2?2 million. Therefore, from his figures, it appears that Nottingham's section 137 money provides less than 50 per cent. of what it costs to fund the existing scheme. But in Tyne and Wear, with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar to some extent, the concessionary travel scheme costs about £22 million. The equivalent of a 2p rate in Tyne and Wear, which at present would be only £2 million, comes nowhere near meeting our requirements.
That is the key to the deception that is being perpetrated on the public. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South tried to wriggle away repeatedly—we shall look at his answer with interest in the Official Report —from the question whether he could put his hand on his heart and say that even the scheme in Nottingham will exist after the Bill is enacted.
I challenge the Secretary of State to put his hand on his heart and say that every existing concessionary travel scheme will still be in place after the Bill is enacted. I do not see that he could say that some of the best schemes in metropolitan country areas and in some municipal areas can exist when the grant-related expenditure that he will allow in the rate precept will be the equivalent of half fares. He has already said that. That might be the case at the moment. but metropolitan counties and other authorities have more flexibility to do something more generous if they wish.
7.30 pm
If the GRE is to be based on the assumption that concessionary travel means half fares, that shows the true philosophy of the Government Front Bench. It fits in with the remarks of the Minister of State at the Bus and Coach Council dinner when he said that the shire counties had got it about right. Given the assumption that concessionary fares will be based in half fares, given that the transport joint boards in the metropolitan counties are effectively rate-capped, and given that the Secretary of State will determine the rate precept for concessionary travel, I do not know how it will be financially possible for authorities which at the moment provide a completely free scheme or which make generous provision for children, such as the 5p flat fare in my county, to maintain those services under

the financial arrangements that will result not only from this Bill but from other legislation that is going through Parliament.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must turn his wrath on the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She has made it clear that she has no intention, if she ever comes to power, of financing concessionary fares on a full repayment basis. Three times I challenged her and three times she denied it. The cock crowed thrice. Would the hon. Gentleman please take the hon. Lady outside and have his argument with her in private? There is no point in blaming me for what she has said.

Mr. Clay: I have no wish to have any argument with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) because she is not sitting where the Secretary of State for Transport is sitting. If she were, and if we had a Labour Government, I and my hon. Friends might be making complimentary speeches about restoring the public transport system that the Secretary of State is about to wreck, or we might be having arguments about how fast we could go along that road. However, it is the Secretary of State who is responsible, and he has not answered the specific points I made.
It is disgraceful to try to distract hon. Members into arguments about what a Labour Government would do if they were in power. We are arguing about what the Secretary of State is doing. I was making a specific point, that it is fraud and hypocrisy to claim continually that clauses are being put in the Bill to enable people to have concessionary travel schemes. The people who benefit from such schemes at the moment do not understand the kind of parliamentary deception that is being practised. They have believed, not unreasonably, that when Ministers say they are protecting concessionary travel, that means that what exists in their area will stay. The Secretary of State knows very well that that is not what it means and that that will not happen. Therefore, it is deception and fraud.

Mr. Parris: The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) say that the new clauses are capable of improvement. How would they improve them?

Mr. Clay: I am arguing that these clauses could have more teeth. I am not arguing specifically about the requirement on operators to provide a scheme. I realise that I am somewhat wide of the clause but much of the debate has been in the same vein.
There is no dispute about the fact that these clauses are the Government's response to the promises made continually in Committee to come back on Report with something that guaranteed concessionary travel. We are arguing that concessionary travel is not guaranteed by the new clauses because they do not provide the means for local authorities to finance even existing schemes, let alone enable local authorities which wish to improve their concessionary schemes to do so.

Mr. Ridley: Why did the hon. Gentleman not table a new clause seeking to achieve the objective that he is now putting forward? Was his arm twisted by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who has made it clear that it is Labour party policy to cut concessionary fares? Will he tell his constituents that, instead of spreading all this rubbish?

Mr. Clay: It is absolute slander to say that it is Labour policy to cut public transport. The Secretary of State is misrepresenting what has been said by anyone on these Benches.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend explain to the Secretary of State that we debated the matter at great length in Committee? The Secretary of State knows very well that, had we put down the same amendments that we debated in Committee, we should have been ruled out of order. He is well aware that the Labour party has spelt out time and time again its commitment to concessionary schemes. What is more, the Labour party has brought them into effect when it has been in control in local government. All his party does is seek to destroy existing schemes and refuse to give the finance that is necessary.

Mr. Clay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. She is right that in Committee many amendments about concessionary travel were tabled by Labour Members. Those amendment would have specifically enabled local authorities to have concessionary travel schemes and to require operators to be involved in them. Conservative Members consistently defeated the amendments because the wording would have put an obligation on the Secretary of State to supply adequate funding.
I well recall the Under-Secretary of State arguing that, if we passed an amendment which would have provided free concessionary travel for old people throughout Britain at all times, it would have cost, in his estimate, the scandalous sum of £230 million. He thought that the possibility of something costing £230 million would convince us all that not even a Labour Government could contemplate it. That brings to mind the absurd runway that has just been laid in the Falklands. If we could provide free travel at all times for every old age pensioner at £230 million, that would be chickenfeed for such an achievement.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I hope the hon. Member will dissociate himself from the deception— I cannot find another word for it—that has been perpetrated by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She told the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) that the reason why the Labour party had not tabled amendments specifically on this matter was that they would be ruled out of order. May I suggest that that is a rather lame excuse? To its credit, the Liberal party—now absent from the Chamber—tabled an amendment to leave out clause 1, which is the kernel of the Bill. If the Liberal party can put down an amendment to underline what it wants to say, why should it have been so difficult for the Labour party?

Mr. Clay: We are straying off the debate about this new clause. I am not answerable for what the Liberal party does about anything. This matter was debated at great length in Committee and I remind hon. Members that we were told—

Mr. Dixon: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that anyone can put down any amendment, but it is up to Mr. Speaker whether or not it is selected? Will he also bear in mind the fact that the amendments about concessionary bus passes that the Secretary of State suggested should be tabled would not be accepted because that could have an effect on the money resolution?

Mr. Clay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should prefer not to give way on this point again. We have had red herring after red herring about Labour party policy and why we did not put down amendments. Conservative Members have been deceiving pensioners and the disabled.

Mr. Ridley: rose —

Mr. Clay: I will give way only if the Secretary of State will explain, for the first time, how local authorities with good concessionary fare schemes will still be able to fund them when, after another Bill becomes law, the metropolitan counties are abolished, joint boards have rate precepts fixed by the Secretary of State and other financial restrictions are placed on local authorities. Can he guarantee that Tyne and Wear will still have a 5p flat fare for children and free travel for the disabled and that other counties will have the same?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is getting himself into extremely deep water, and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) made the water a little deeper for him. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour party tried to amend the Bill to achieve permanent guarantees for concessionary fares? That did not work, because the Bill is not about the finance of the concessionary fare schemes but about arrangements for the bus industry. There is no way that the Bill could be amended in the way suggested. He knows that perfectly well. Will he come clean and admit for once that he is talking about the wrong Bill?

Mr. Clay: The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that a Bill can deal with taxis as well as buses, with virtually every aspect of the bus industry, and with banning smoking on buses—which has nothing to do with deregulation—could have had clauses which would have guaranteed concessionary travel and placed the financial responsibility for that on the Secretary of State.

Mr. Pike: It is important not to be led down the line that the Labour party has tabled no amendments on concessionary fares today. New clause 18, in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is about our fallback attempt, which we made in Committee, to ensure that existing concessionary fare schemes are protected. We realised that we would not have got any further than that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. Hon. Members are dealing with a number of clauses and amendments, but we must deal only with the ones selected in this group. Hon. Members must stop talking about what is in order—the Chair decides that.

Mr. Clay: I am grateful for that protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I said that I should like to return to this new clause instead of having to deal with the disruptions from Tory Members designed to disguise the central fact that the Government have been deceiving the public with their promises about concessionary travel being protected.
There is no explanation of how local authorities will negotiate the basis of reimbursement with the operators concerned. That is a very complicated matter. Repeatedly in Committee, we said that we expected that when this famous set of clauses, for which we have all been waiting, was finally revealed to the light of day, something in it would explain how the local authorities and the operators would agree the basis of reimbursement for whatever scheme the local authority wished to apply.
It is significant that, at the end of the day, after the complicated and bureaucratic procedure of appeals and the rest laid out in the new clause, if an operator still refuses to participate in a scheme, the case will go to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can, if he wishes, go back to the local authority and say that the scheme that it wishes to impose on the operator is unreasonable for certain reasons. Effectively, he can say to the authority that, if it wants the operator to participate in the scheme, it will have to have a certain scheme.

Mr. Parris: That is correct.

Mr. Clay: I am glad that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) has agreed that I have that right.
In that case, the Secretary of State, far from guaranteeing concessionary travel, has given himself powers that he has been after for some time. They are powers to tie down authorities and to shape the kind of concessionary travel schemes that they will have. It is obvious that, with this Secretary of State, if the more generous schemes are resisted by operators, he will say that the authorities are unreasonable. He will side with the operator and tell the local authority that it will have to have a different scheme if it wants him to force the operator to come into the scheme.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman restate his last few sentences? I find it difficult to follow the logic that an operator is likely to refuse the more generous schemes. Surely this clause is to protect both local authorities and operators when the scheme is ungenerous. That is the reverse of what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. Clay: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. There is a difference between generosity to receivers of concessionary travel — the old, the young and the disabled—and generosity to operators. It may be that a generous scheme that provides free travel at all times for the disabled and the old and cheap flat fares for children will not, because of the way it operates, be particularly attractive to certain bus operators. On the other hand, a less generous scheme may be more attractive to bus operators. There may be disputes about this, and what is best for passengers may not always be most attractive to the operator. In such a conflict, the case will end up with the Secretary of State, whom I am fairly certain will come down in favour of the operator.
Furthermore, the Secretary of State still has not explained, although this question was asked repeatedly, how on earth a local authority, particularly when it is faced with the complex mechanism to oblige operators to participate in the scheme, will estimate how to pool the concessionary travel money that it will need to finance schemes in a particular year—assuming that it can get the money from somewhere. Operators will be able to register and pull out again and will be able to argue about whether they want to participate in the scheme. How will a local authority, at a particular point in its year, be able to estimate what amount of concessionary money to allow for the following year, when it does not even know what operators there will be in the scheme, what rate support grant there will be or any of the other factors required to make a judgment?
Even if generous funding and central Government support were available, the rest of the Bill and the instability that may be created in the industry will make it impossible for the PTAs to be able to estimate what money to allocate for such schemes. How will they be able to say to an operator that if he operates on a particular rate for a year he will be paid so much if he participates in the concessionary travel scheme? Once the authority has named a sum of money and secured an agreement with an operator, what happens if another operator registers along that route to compete with the first? Does it promise him the same sum of money, or does it go back to the first operator and say, "Despite the agreement that we made with you, we shall pay you only half the amount we originally agreed to pay, because we have to give the other half to somebody else who has just decided to register and to operate a service in competition with you?" These fundamental questions have not yet been answered by the Secretary of State, or by anybody else.
For these reasons, as well as the fundamental reason of a persistent refusal to explain how the existing schemes, let alone better ones, will be funded, these clauses are a fraud and one of the most cruel deceptions that this Government have inflicted. The pensioners and the disabled now realise how they have been deceived and misled by the Government's phoney promises on concessionary travel. The Government will reap the whirlwind because of the deception that they have practised.

Mr. Parris: Good heavens, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If that is the kind of speech that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and his colleagues make when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has honoured every undertaking that he gave in Committee, I wonder what kind of speeches they would have made had he not honoured those commitments. Everything that my right hon. Friend said in Committee that he would do he has now done in the new clauses. They lay down in clear and uncompromising terms precisely the obligations upon operators which the Committee asked my right hon Friend to lay down. A considerable burden is laid upon operators. If there is any cause for raised eyebrows about the new clauses, it should be about the burden that the obligations lay upon operators, a point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) referred.
No mention has been made of the position under the existing regime. There are no formal statutory powers under which a local authority may oblige operators to participate in concessionary schemes, but local authorities have an effective power to encourage operators to participate. As a local authority is involved in the licensing of routes, it can withdraw the licence of an operator who refuses to operate a concessionary scheme, or somebody else can be licensed to operate on the same route. That is not very different from providing the ghost service which my right hon. Friend suggested might be included in the Bill, which would be a sufficient weapon in the hands of local authorities but upon which the Opposition poured so much scorn.

Mr. Dixon: Nonsense.

Mr. Parris: The hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense". Would he care to explain why?

Mr. Dixon: How on earth could a local authority run a ghost service to pick up the disabled and the elderly who will not be catered for by the private entrepreneurs?

Mr. Parris: The same question could be asked about the powers which are available to local authorities under the existing system. If an operator refuses to participate in a concessionary scheme, the only power that is available to a local authority is to say that a licence will be given to somebody else to operate on that particular route or that the local authority will subsidise the running of a service on that route. If all local operators wanted to call the bluff of the local authority, they would be in a strong position, but they have rarely, if ever, done so and concessionary schemes have been imposed quite effectively upon operators.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that this was a roundabout way for the Secretary of State to determine what kind of concessionary schemes a local authority ought to run. If it is, the Secretary of State already has such a power under the existing system. Appeals against the withdrawal of a licence or the refusal to grant a licence are now determined under the same kind of system as is proposed in the new clauses. My right hon. Friend's arrangements make it absolutely clear that wherever a local authority has a reasonable travel concession scheme it can oblige operators to take part in it. The local authority will have all the means necessary at its disposal to ensure that operators co-operate. What more can we ask from my right hon. Friend than that?
All that we could ask for is what the Opposition have been pressing for but for which it is unreasonable to ask: that the Secretary of State should undertake to underwrite financially every concessionary fare scheme which any local authority may wish to operate. My right hon. Friend refuses to do it under the new provisions, he refuses to do it under the existing provisions, and the last Labour Government certainly did not do it during the many years when they had the opportunity to do exactly the same thing.
At a time when public transport in many parts of this country had declined substantially and seriously, the Labour Government were not prepared to step in and underwrite concessionary fare schemes. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to do that, nor would it be reasonable for him to do it. All that my right hon. Friend is doing in the new clauses is saying to local authorities, "Work out a reasonable and sensible concessionary fares scheme. If the local operators will not participate, I shall give you the power to force them to participate." My right hon. Friend has done everything that he said in Committee he would do, and Conservative Members are grateful to him.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) and I both serve on the Select Committee on Transport, but I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee which examined the Bill. I have been stunned by some of the remarks which have been made, to which I have listened carefully. I have also been listening carefully to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have said that we should try to deal with the clauses and not roam all over the globe.
Hon. Members will recall that I have already said that I am disturbed about the nature of the Bill. The Transport and General Workers Union is also disturbed by it. That

is why continual lobbying is taking place. Hon. Members who support the Bill are being asked to discuss it with the union because union members feel grave disquiet about their future wages, conditions of work and pensions. Their suspicions and fears have not yet been allayed, nor have the suspicions and fears of the elderly about the concessionary fares which the new clauses attempt to wrap up as much as possible. Concessionary fares in London, however, are almost enshrined in law.
The Secretary of State has never lacked nerve, but he has great nerve when he suggests that the Opposition do not care about the elderly and that it is only the Conservatives who care. That is ridiculous. I concede immediately to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) that the care felt in local government cuts right across party political boundaries. It may be that in Nottingham the Tories were persuaded by the attitude of the then Labour Government and by what was taking place in Birmingham, which is not very far from Nottingham. When one scheme gets under way, great pressure is exerted, which works to the advantage of the elderly.
Many Conservative and Liberal members of local authorities would prefer that kind of scheme to be applied as generously as possible. Vying with that would be the philosophy of hon. Members who hold similar views to those of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South: that such a scheme should not impose too heavy a burden upon ratepayers and taxpayers. If the hon. Member for Nottingham, South does not hold that view, I shall accept what he says. However, that is the general attitude of the Tories and of the Secretary of State, who has been forced to try to allay people's fears.
Many questions about new clause 11 have to be asked. If a private operator backtracks upon his supposed obligations under the local authority scheme, what kind of policing is there to be? If reports are made because of certain misdeeds, will the private operator be able to use lawyers to try to safeguard his scheme? How many cases do we envisage? The answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West is that people in general have greater faith in local authority and municipal transport schemes.
I have lived a bit longer than the hon. Gentleman and I well remember the substandard private bus operations that we heard about when we visited Hereford and Worcester. There were ample tales about that. I want to know more about the consequences of such things—the charging of people who should not be charged when only one vehicle is in sight. The whole gamut of the Bill opens the way for the slick operator and to cowboy activity. We shall see it in full measure in due course.
8 pm
I want particularly to allude to the climate in which the free fare—not the concessionary fare—on London buses and tubes came into being. That was accepted in the longer term by Tory members of the GLC. It was in their election manifesto and they could not backtrack on that. But they certainly did not spearhead the free fair system. It is not customary for concessionary fares or free travel for pensioners to be spearheaded by Tories, despite their importance. Mostly they go along with initiatives taken by Labour Members on local authorities, and that is what happened in the GLC.
Labour Members have had the most powerful lobby that they have ever experienced, financed by the Labour-controlled GLC. Old people have been encouraged to keep smothering us with representations on the necessity to safeguard their free travel on London's buses and tubes. They are now worried about the extent to which privatisation will mean that they will not get the same deal that they have been accustomed to under the GLC's management of buses and tubes which has now long gone. That is why Tory Members in Committee on the London Regional Transport Bill had to get up on their hind legs and insist that the Secretary of State dare not do anything other than safeguard the situation in London.
I do not know why the Secretary of State is making such a meal of the Bill tonight. Of course, one cannot spell out exactly what would occur under a Labour Administration, but at least tonight, in response to this debate, he must state clearly that the present concessionary fares are safe in his hands. Conservative Members should also be insisting on that. If the policies of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State's close associate, on social and hospital services and so on are anything to go by we must be doubtful about that. However, that is what he should do in an attempt to allay some of the fears.
I assume that we shall seek to divide the House on the new clauses, but much will depend upon the reply that the Minister gives tonight. He is an architect of confusion. He loves cut-throat competition and thinks that market forces can go where the hell they like in order to determine fare levels. Therefore, one imagines that he had to be forced further than his philosophy allowed him to go in order to write safeguards into these new clauses.
The Secretary of State has introduced a crackpot Bill. We wait anxiously to get away from that audacious assertion that we do not care about old folk and their travelling facilities which are enormously important. Jack Jones, the former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, together with the trade union movement, has been at the forefront of demands that concessionary travel should be safeguarded as well as many other matters which affect the poor working class. It is in its interests that we battle here tonight. We are trying to extract some humanity from the Secretary of State. The ability of old folk to travel, leaving the car at home so that they are no longer burdened with it, is of enormous importance to Britain's social structure. The Bill and many other measures put through by the Government put old folk in jeopardy.

Mr. Wareing: It was clear in Committee that the Secretary of State was looking for some fig leaf with which he could cover his nakedness over this issue. He has come along with these new clauses and none of them adequately satisfies Labour Members. The Committee was stuffed with one-term Tory Members who will not be in the House when, after the next election, the Labour Government are asked to restore public transport and the right which our senior citizens and disabled people now have—the right to concessionary travel passes. They will not be here, but they were a little worried so they tabled amendments. One related to concessionary travel and another to disabled people and their rights.
Labour Members felt that there might be courageous souls among Tory Members, but when it came to the vote we found that the Tory Back Benchers had the courage only of the Secretary of State's conviction. They were not

willing to take their amendments to the vote. It was the Labour Members in Committee who had to vote against the withdrawal of amendments tabled by Tory Members. Presumably, they believed the gobbledegook of the package promised by the Secretary of State. We see now that the reality of that package is not one that even the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) can respond to by saying honestly that the scheme in his city will remain in existence if the Bill, with the new clause, reaches the statute book.

Mr. Parris: It would be an example of courage to see a Labour Member admit that the Opposition's argument on this is completely bogus and that the Government have delivered everything that they promised in Committee. That would take courage.

Mr. Wareing: No, I am afraid that the Government have not come up with what Labour Members demanded in Committee. Despite pretending otherwise, the Government have not fulfilled their promise to the disabled and the elderly or to parents with young children, in the latter category to enable them to take children to and from school.
Although the Secretary of State made promises in Committee which seemed to placate Back Benchers, the real spokesmen on the Conservative Benches — those who were saying out loud what was in the Secretary of State's mind — included the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) who has honoured us with his presence today, though he was often conspicuous by his absence from Committee.

Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.

Mr. Wareing: During one of the hon. Gentleman's brief excursions into the Committee Room he said — speaking, no doubt, for his party — that commercial undertakings had to make a profit and that he regarded public transport as a commercial undertaking and not a social service. Indeed, that is the gap that divides the parties on this issue. He said that profits must come first and that then we might consider what facilities could be provided for the disabled, the elderly and the rest.
He was supported in that assertion at a later stage by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeec)—who is conspicuous by his absence today — who told the Committee that hon. Members should not be overwhelmed by arguments about assisting the disabled. I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, East is never disabled, although he seems to suffer from a degree of mental handicap.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman referred to concessionary fares for children. Does he agree that, for the first time, the Bill enshrines a provision in that respect for children and that he, like every other member of the Standing Committee, received letters from county councils welcoming that provision?

Mr. Wareing: There is no guarantee in the Bill that services which are at present provided—for example. by Merseyside county council to enable children to travel for half fare—will continue once the Bill becomes law. It was made clear in Committee that Tory Members were concerned with the cowboys who can be trusted to support them at subsequent elections.
Let us not forget that the White Paper which was a prelude to the Bill went so far as to say that it would be easier to administer a token system. All the evidence


appears to prove that, if the Government are not willing to provide the financial resources to enable the pass system to continue, any concessionary scheme that is permitted will probably be the token system. I shall deal with some of the difficulties to which that would give rise.

Mr. Steen: We had the pleasure of speeches from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) many times in Committee. Indeed, the only time that I was absent from the proceedings was when the hon. Gentleman was speaking; he was so tiresome and repetitive that I felt it preferable to be outside. Other than on those occasions, I was one of the most regular attenders and contributed in a positive and constructive way to the Committee's deliberations.
Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that transport systems should be seen as social services?

Mr. Wareing: Yes.

Mr. Steen: As he knows, I am one of the few trained social workers in the House, a point that I made in Committee. I repeat it because, with many of my hon. Friends, I am experienced in the welfare of the elderly, the handicapped, the ill and the mentally sick. The last thing that my hon. Friends and I want is to see that group of people being disadvantaged.
However, we believe—the hon. Gentleman cannot yet absorb this—that it is not inconsistent to have a commercial undertaking and at the same time to help the disabled, the handicapped, the poor, the mentally sick and the rest. The hon. Gentleman wants guarantees. That is the difference between a totalitarian, monopolistic approach and a private enterprise commercial approach. Does he accept that it is not inconsistent to have a commercial enterprise which cares for others?

Mr. Wareing: That intervention was almost as long as the one that the right hon. Gentleman made in Committee when I permitted him to interrupt a speech that I was making, and he made the statement to which I referred. He reveals the great divide between the two sides on this issue. He sees public transport as a commercial enterprise, and the motive of commercial enterprises is profit. Thus, profit must come before people —[Interruption.] — be they the elderly, the disabled or whoever. The very raison d'etre of private enterprise is profit, whereas the raison d'etre of a social service is to provide for the needs of people. We do not ask whether a particular NHS hospital makes a profit. Legislators have a duty to look after the whole community.
The hon. Member for South Hams may have received training in social work, but it did not teach him much. He may remember, before he emigrated from Liverpool, Wavertree to the safer seat of South Hams in Devon, that many old folk and young disabled people lived on the outskirts of Liverpool in council and residential estates and that the only way to relieve their isolation and loneliness, perhaps by visiting relatives and friends, was by using the bus passes provided by nearly all the district councils on Merseyside—with the exception, of course, of the ultra Right-wing Tory council of Sefton district, which consistently refused to provide for the needs of its senior citizens.

Mr. Dixon: If the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), a qualified social worker, believes that the disabled, the old and the infirm should not have concessionary passes until the bus companies make profits, one is bound to wonder what view the accountants, banisters and company directors on the Tory Benches take of concessionary fares.

Mr. Wareing: I agree with my hon. Friend. If a Conservative social worker cannot find it in his heart to overcome the Tory private enterprise ethic on behalf of the elderly and disabled, it will be hard luck on those folk if they are left to the mercy of the 100 banisters on the Government Benches.
Labour Members have to speak for constituencies such as mine, where 75 per cent. of the people, including the able-bodied as well as those who need concessionary fares, do not have the use of a private car. This is a social service. That is why we on Merseyside decided, after the Labour party was in control, to provide concessionary travel passes to the poor senior citizens of Tory-dominated Sefton district and to reduce fares on the buses to enable more people to travel. We turned the tide after years of Tory rule during which the number of passengers using the buses declined. Since 1981, the Secretary of State has argued that there has been a decline in the use of buses. We know, however, that on Merseyside patronage of buses has increased by 13 per cent.
A lesson can be learned from concessionary travel. It costs Merseyside county council and other local authorities on Merseyside £18· million a year to provide concessionary travel, £16 million of which is provided by Merseyside county council. The Secretary of State for the Environment, however, is determined that GRE to cover the cost of concessionary travel should be £4· million. I raised this matter in Committee with the Secretary of State, who has not yet answered me. What on earth will be the real cost of providing the same scheme to the people on Merseyside when the council is abolished and the joint board has its budget fixed for the first three years by the Secretary of State for the Environment? Obviously, the cost will be much more than £18· million. It will be much more than the GRE which the Secretary of State for the Environment is willing to provide for concessionary travel.
After this Bill becomes law, the authority that runs transport on Merseyside after 1985 will have to abandon the present concessionary scheme. It might have to go over to the ludicrous token scheme, with its accompanying disadvantages of a black market, with tokens being transferred and used as currency. This measure might ensure — this is the crux of the matter — that public expenditure on concessionary travel is cut. Every clause in every Bill introduced by a Conservative Secretary of State is aimed at redressing the imbalance for the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the person who really determines policy.
The Government have chided Labour Members, asking why the Labour party did not ensure that concessionary travel passes were provided when it was in power. The Secretary of State has been busy chiding my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about the actions of a future Labour Government. It was not the Labour Government of the 1970s which, year in and year out, cut transport supplementary grant or reduced rate support grant from 61 per cent. to 48 per cent. The


Labour Government did not introduce the draconian rate-capping legislation which this Government have introduced during the past three years.
We can say, "The next Labour Government would not be allowed to retain such a Bill on the statute book." No Labour Member of Parliament would be allowed by his constituents — by the activists living in Crewe and Nantwich, in Liverpool, West Derby or elsewhere—to retain this Act for longer than was absolutely necessary. It would be months rather than years before this legislation was repealed, local authorities again had democratic rights and transport undertakings were provided as a social service.
When the people see what is behind this fig leaf, which does not fully cover the nakedness of the Secretary of State, and understand this folly, they will realise the effect of deregulation. Indeed, as was shown in Committee, people in the Secretary of State's constituency are up in arms about the deregulation of buses.
We should clearly say to the Government, "This measure may make the Bill a little better than it was in Committee, but it does nothing to safeguard the interests of our people. As soon as the Labour party is in power, it will ensure that those interests are resurrected."

Dr. Marek: I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has shown a jack-in-the-box attitude and is not present at the moment. A short time ago he said that he was the only social worker in the House.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Trained social worker.

Dr. Marek: He said that he was the only trained social worker in the House. He said that there was no possibility of helping the handicapped or the elderly until bus services were profitable. I am paraphrasing him, but that was the essence of his argument. The hon. Gentleman's argument is deplorable and must be brought to the attention of the country. That argument rang somewhat hollow. Conservative Members, using their favourite phrase, have said that the Labour party has no monopoly of compassion for the aged or the handicapped. I hope that Conservative Members will help the aged and the handicapped. They mouth platitudes and make noises but, when it comes to voting, they obey their Whips and troop into the Lobbies as directed like sheep.
Some Conservative Members say that it takes some courage to state that this clause is an improvement. I believe that it is an improvement, although I am worried about some aspects of it. I can see that it takes some courage for Conservative Members to vote in the Lobby with the Opposition against aspects of the Bill that clearly will not help the handicapped, the disadvantaged or the elderly.
Although the new clause makes the Bill a little better, I am not happy with it, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). The metropolitan counties are to be abolished and it is by no means clear that the existing level of concessionary fares will be maintained. With the exception of London, where a special case has been made, the provision of concessionary fares will be left to the boroughs and is likely to deteriorate. It is no use the Government arguing that the Labour Government did nothing about this because the Labour Government should have done something about it and that is certainly no excuse for the Conservatives doing nothing about it either.

In many ways, we seem to be going backwards into the 19th century rather than forwards into the 21st century. This is an evil Bill, the new clause does little to improve it, and I shall vote against it.
8.30 pm
There is also the problem of the shire counties, where existing concessionary fares schemes are much more rudimentary. If the financing of such schemes is moved out of the transport supplementary grant and into the block grant there will be great pressure on authorities from all the other problems that have beset them in the past five years—education cuts, inadequate housing provision, and so on. It is likely, therefore, that nothing will be done in the shire counties. If concessionary schemes continue to exist at all, old-age pensioners may receive £20, £30 or £40 worth of tokens each year. More enlightened shire counties may operate half fare schemes, although I am not aware of any such provision in my area. In any event, it looks as though such schemes as now exist will suffer as a result of this legislation, so we are going backwards. That is why I object to the new clause and to the Bill.
The fact that an operator cannot leave the scheme without the authority's consent is a welcome provision, but I fear that shire authorities may allow operators to leave the scheme. An operator may say that his service is unsuitable, that he must catch the commuters and so has no time to help women with children or shopping. Rather than face the possibility of the operator ceasing to provide a service in a rural area and the authority having to consider supporting it through subsidy, the authority may well allow the operator to withdraw from the scheme.
Even if the authority says that the operator must remain in the scheme, the operator can appeal to the Secretary of State, and who knows what attitude the Secretary of State will take? He may take decisions that are utterly unacceptable to us. Experience certainly suggests that that will be the case with the present Secretary of State, although the next Labour Secretary of State will doubtless take the first opportunity to repeal these provisions. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may laugh now, but he will not be laughing in a little while. The right hon. Gentleman may well not last beyond October, but any Tory Secretary of State might allow operators to opt out on a purely arbitrary basis. We do not know whether any criteria will be laid down in regulations. Again, therefore, it is clear that the old and the disadvantaged are likely to suffer.
The new clause does not meet the need to provide a service for the elderly and the disabled. Ideally, I should like to see concessionary fares abolished because I would like everyone to have a free pass for local stage carriage services. That should be the aim of the whole House. If the actions of the Conservatives were not perpetually clouded by dogma about profit and the market, the) might realise that the hassle and the administrative problems involved in counting and issuing tokens is simply not worth it in terms of the additional revenue to be extracted from old-age pensioners. It is far simpler to give them all photocards stating that they are old-age pensioners and allowing them to travel free on any local stage carriage service. That is an equitable solution. It is also a social solution. From the Government's point of view, the economic value may be greater for pensioners in rural areas because it costs a great deal to travel 12 or 15 miles into the nearest town to visit the shops, the community


centre, the cinema or the bingo hall. Old-age pensioners simply cannot afford to do that, and even if there are concessions the tokens will run out after three or four journeys.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has said, even if the Conservatives do not accept the social need for mobility, medical evidence shows that it is beneficial and therapeutic for the elderly and the disabled to be able to get about. If the Government do not accept the general point, they should regard concessionary schemes as an important social service in that sense.

Dr. Marek: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Whether pensioners live in the country or in the town, they have paid their taxes throughout their lives and society should help them by providing free local travel. Under this legislation, private operators will be running parallel services subject to withdrawal or alteration at whim. If a bus driver going in one direction sees more potential passengers on the other side of the street, he may turf out the old-age pensioners and go off in the opposite direction.
The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I fear the worst. We shall see what happens after D-day in September. I believe that chaos will reign, as it did in Hereford, with buses crowding in on one another and trying to get as many passengers as possible. The old and the handicapped will suffer because they will not be able to race from one stop to another trying to catch the buses. The situation will be as chaotic as it has been in the Hereford trial area. There are fewer services in Hereford now, there is competition only on one route and many rural towns such as Kington and Presteigne have fewer services than they had before. I believe that this legislation will result in chaos. It will be difficult for the next Labour Government to end the chaos and set up a proper regulated system once again. I am not in favour of regulation for its own sake. I am in favour of regulation because of the service and the integration of transport that regulation can provide.
Unless we reintroduce regulation, it will be very difficult for us to establish a system of completely free local stage carriage services for old people. That has always been my aim, regardless of which party has been in power. I hope that Conservative Members can agree with that aim even if they cannot agree with the methods that I would use to bring it about. It would be nice just to hear hon. Gentlemen say that such a system is desirable because it would provide proper mobility for our old people whether they live in the towns or in the country.
I hope that the Conservative party will see the light. I do not think that the Government will do so. They are a lost cause. However, the argument is not lost yet. I hope that when we find ourselves in chaos — I assure the Secretary of State that I shall not speak for more than another minute—

Mr. Ridley: A minute?

Dr. Marek: The Secretary of State should listen to some sense for once. It may be presumptuous of me to say so, but I think that he might find it instructive to listen to what I am saying. When D-day arrives and the initial regime is set up, many of our old people will be severely

disadvantaged. If we cannot amend it now, or if it is not amended in another place or when it returns to this Chamber, I hope that once it becomes apparent that the legislation is making a mess of the transport system the Government will do something about it then.

Mr. Dixon: It is true that these changes improve the Bill slightly. Rather than opting in, contractors must opt out of the concessionary scheme. That is the only concession that the Secretary of State has given us, after all the discussions in Committee on concessionary fares.
My hon. Friends and Conservative Members tabled amendments on concessionary fares in Committee, and the Secretary of State made his famous statement that local authorities should run ghost services to pick up elderly and disabled people left at the bus stops by the entrepreneurs or cowboys, as we call them, who would be more concerned about putting backsides on seats than about allowing time for the elderly or disabled to get on to the bus.
Will the Secretary of State say why pensioners in Tyne and Wear should be treated differently from pensioners in Greater London? During the Second Reading of the London Regional Transport Bill two London Conservative Members who were concerned about concessionary passes for London pensioners challenged the Secretary of State to amend the Bill so as to safeguard those passes. At that time, the Secretary of State refused to do so. However, the members of the Committee showed much more backbone than the members of the Committee on the present Bill. They forced the Secretary of State to underwrite concessionary passes for London's pensioners.
That is what we want for the rest of the country. What is good enough for London is good enough for pensioners in my area. Pensioners in my area and in areas represented by Conservative Members will ask why we did not provide in the present Bill what was provided in the London Regional Transport Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said that, although Tory Members tabled amendments about concessions for the disabled, they disappeared when it was time to vote. There was a memorable occasion, after dinner one evening, when the Tory Members rebelled. It was a bogus rebellion. One after another, the Tory Members said that under no circumstances would they accept clause 22. The Minister said that in that case clause 22 would be deleted. What was the effect of clause 22? It was the only clause that gave ordinary people the right to make representations to the traffic commissioner about the take-over by private people of bus services in their area and the probable destruction of those services.
Concessionary passes are as important as home helps to old-age pensioners. Indeed, if the passes are withdrawn, more will have to be spent on home helps. Many people in my area, living just across the water from Whitley bay, never had the opportunity to visit that holiday resort until Tyne and Wear introduced concessionary passes.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman is becoming extremely passionate. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has only just walked in. If he had bothered to listen to the rest of the debate, I do not think that he would have opened his mouth.

Mr. David Winnick: Yes, I would.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) is kicking at an open door. My hon. Friends are satisfied that concessionary pass schemes can be continued. The Opposition have spent the past two hours playing to their private galleries back home.

Mr. Dixon: I will be perfectly satisfied about concessionary passes if the pensioners of Tyne and Wear are given the same assurance in this Bill as pensioners of London were given under the London Regional Transport Act. Why should people outside Greater London be treated differently?

Mr. Parris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dixon: No. I am sorry.

Mr. Parris: There are only half fares in London.

Mr. Dixon: I believe that, apart from the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) is the only Conservative Member present who was a member of the Committee on the London Regional Transport Bill. When the Secretary of State made that provision in the Bill, it referred to restricted hours. The restrictions were lifted in the other place, so that London pensioners are now enjoying a provision that will not be given to pensioners elsewhere. We too want concessionary passes for our people.
We cannot vote against these provisions, because they improve the Bill. But I would not say that they are good or that they are what we want. Perhaps the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, will give us some assurance that in another place the same clause will be added to the Bill as appeared in the London Regional Transport Bill.

Mr. Ridley: We have had two interwoven debates and I shall try to deal with both. The first concerns what I might call the Brandon-Bravo clauses as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) led the campaign for them. The second concerns concessionary fares and how they can be made more sure.
I hope that the House will bear with me if I consider the new clauses fairly fully to reassure hon. Members who have asked questions about them. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said that they are long and complex. They are, because we are dealing with a complex matter and have tried to anticipate all manner of events and configurations which might arise so that the legislation deals adequately with everything. I hope to demonstrate that I have already spotted one matter in regard to which we have not got it right. This is a very complex business.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked the reasons for the word "withdrawal". She seemed to imply that, under new clause 9, an operator can apply to withdraw from a concessionary fares scheme. I am sure that she read it wrong. If an operator threatens to withdraw or gives notice of his intention to withdraw, the local authority can appeal to prevent him from withdrawing. It is the other way round from how she presented it.
Like many other hon. Members, the hon. Lady mentioned tokens. There is nothing in the Bill which prevents local authorities from continuing with pass schemes. If they want, they can select token schemes or

stick with pass schemes. With modern technology, pass schemes become even easier and many local authorities operate them with several bus proprietors.

Mr. Wareing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will press on the Secretary of State for the Environment the need to provide the necessary funding if existing schemes are to be continued if local authorities want them?

Mr. Ridley: It is always a great mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He knew that I would consider concessionary fares and their financing later. The hon. Gentleman has simply wasted my time and that of the House. I shall deal with that matter at the correct time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned delegation of the power to settle appeals. My hon. Fr: end thought that perhaps it was intended that delegation should be to the traffic commissioners and the hon. Lady thought that perhaps it should be to the traffic commissioners. It was not intended that delegation should be to the traffic commissioners. It will probably be to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which would appoint an impartial expert to decide. The reason for that is that appeals might often be about remuneration for bus passes. There can be difficult decisions about the system for rewarding bus companies which carry old people and about whether that system is sufficient, proper and accurate and reflects the cost to the bus company.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said that the bus pass in Nottingham is worth £48. If, having got a scheme in place, the local authority said that it would pay £24 rather than £48 and that the bus operators would have to carry the difference, that would be a variation of the scheme and it would be perfectly right for operators to withdraw. They would then be appealed against and I should have to make a decision. In those circumstances, I think that the House would believe it right for me to say that I am not prepared to uphold the local authority's appeal because the level of remuneration is clearly inadequate. Such matters, which are economic and could become on the verge of political, are not the right ones to be decided by the traffic commissioners. On a more technical side, it is right that there should be a power to delegate the decision of appeals to CIPFA or a body.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State convinced that, on that basis, sufficient information will be available to CIPFA? Would it not be better to have an input from a transport planning authority as this is rather more than an argument about cash? I know that the right hon. Gentleman sees all of this in terms of an argument about cash, but it is rather more complicated.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady must not impart prejudice into every question. It is a transaction between a bus company and a local authority. The local authority offers money to a bus company to carry old people with passes. If the transaction is to be enforced by law, we cannot leave the price of that transaction to the local authority without providing arbitration. If the hon. Lady goes to a grocer's shop and the grocer has, by law, to sell her butter, she cannot tell the grocer that she will pay only half the asking price and that he can stand the loss. If we are passing that sort of law, we must set up an appeals procedure.


I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight about penalties. If an operator is fined under clause 16 for failing to operate a concessionary fare scheme when he has lost an appeal or has not appealed and he is fined, probably quite heavily, the second time, there would be no doubt in my mind that the traffic commissioner would find him not a fit or proper person to run a bus company, and the commissioner would have the power to take away the operator's licence. The same point was made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) who was concerned about whether the criminal sanctions were adequate. I believe that I made it clear that they are backed up by operator licensing sanctions. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point about the variation of a scheme. If a local authority varies the terms of recompense or the requirements, it is clearly right that the operator should be able to go to appeal. I am afraid that the whole process will bring the Government into a certain amount of arbitration, at least until case experience is established to the extent that schemes begin to work sensibly.
9 pm
The first point of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) was, I thought, a slight verbal quibble as to whether the grounds upon which an operator could appeal if he wanted to come out of the scheme should be described as inappropriate or unreasonable. I think that we are trying to do the same thing. I have a slight preference for inappropriate as against unreasonable. If the remuneration of a local authority is inadequate, it would be inappropriate for somebody to have to stay in the scheme. Taking the case, say, of a long-distance luxury coach service which the local authority might seek to bring within the scheme, it would be inappropriate rather than unreasonable for that type of service to be included. With all due respect, I believe that "inappropriate" is better than "unreasonable". It is something that I would be happy to pursue with my hon. Friend over a glass of refreshment on another occasion if he feels dissatisfied.
As to my hon. Friend's second point, he is right to draw attention to the unclear position about what happens to the operator in the course of an appeal and whether he should continue to operate the scheme. I give an assurance that in another place we shall seek to rectify that omission and to clarify the position. My preference is for those who are operating schemes and appealing against staying in to be required to stay in, and for those who are not in schemes and are required to come into them to be allowed to stay out until the appeal is determined. However, that is not the last word on the subject. We shall seek to put right in another place the point that my hon. Friend correctly made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) raised the important point of the great new opportunities for taxi owners and, more importantly, for pensioners arising from the provisions of the Bill which allow concessionary fare schemes to include taxis running in the configuration of a bus service. As she rightly said, in many villages only a few people wish to travel, it is not economic to run a bus and at present no buses are running. Therefore, when smaller, cheaper vehicles such as taxis can run, as provided for in the Bill, concessionary fares can be applied to them also. Indeed, under these clauses

local authorities can force taxis in such a configuration to carry passengers when a concessionary fares scheme is currently running.
I deal next with the more general argument. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said that it was his dream and aspiration that one day there would be a system of free travel for all elderly and disabled people throughout the country. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that
The Government is clear that our national resources simply will not stretch to the level of expenditure required for universal free travel for all those entitled to concessions".
Opposition Members will be interested to know that I was quoting from the Labour party's White Paper of February 1979 on the subject of concessionary fares. That is why I turned on the hon. Lady the Member for Crewe and Nantwich earlier to inquire whether she has departed from that White Paper. We have already had some long speeches, and I think that we will have a few more. The White Paper states:
It is sometimes argued that the best way of securing uniformity is to raise all schemes to the level of the most generous, in other words to provide free travel for everyone eligible for a concession. This would however cost well over £200 million a year, even if the concession were available only in a person's own locality. Local authorities who wish to provide more generous schemes should retain the option of doing so, since local discretion to take account of local conditions and priorities is valuable and must be retained…It could be argued that it is not enough for the concession to be available for local travel and that it should be possible for concessions to be available on longer-distance journeys. On average some 30 per cent. of the passengers carried on National Travel's express service coaches are elderly and mandatory half-fare concession could lose the National Bus Company a substantial amount of revenue with insufficient compensation in terms of generated traffic.
That is the language of the Labour party in office. That Government said, "We can't afford it. It costs too much. We shall leave it to the local authorities to top up if they wish." Where in that White Paper is the guarantee that all Labour Members have been calling for?
In the light of what I knew of the hypocritical gramophone record that we would hear during the debate, before we got under way, I asked the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich whether she went beyond that White Paper, and was prepared to guarantee to the people about whom she is talking that the Labour party was in favour of full fare concessions in some way being written into statute. Three times I asked her the question, and three times she dodged it. Therefore, Labour Members should forget it. All their aspirations and dreams, and the fibs that they have been telling their constituents, will be shattered by the hon. Lady herself.
Let me take the House into the full horror of it. The second time that I asked the hon. Lady what Labour's schemes for concessionary fares were, if it had the chance to put them into practice, she said that all elderly people should be able to travel freely. She added the two letters "ly". Everybody is enabled to travel freely. Nothing stops us travelling freely. However, when I asked her the third time, I said, "The hon. Lady said `freely'. Does 'freely' mean 'free'?" She sludged off it. She went into a quagmire about how much she loved public transport, and refused to answer the question. So now we know. All Labour Members can forget their bogus, hypocritical and humbug campaign about concessionary fares because the hon. Lady has made it as clear as clear can be that she believes in a half fare scheme, that it is too expensive to have a full fare scheme, that there is no guarantee that those schemes


will continue in the future, and that we should leave it to the local authorities alone, unguided, to decide on the scheme that they prefer to put into practice.
Let me take the House through the last stages of the argument.

Dr. Marek: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ridley: The Government have—

Dr. Marek: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ridley: All right.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way as he was referring to me in his speech. He would receive more respect from me and the House if he quoted me correctly. I talked about free travel on local stage carriage services. If the Secretary of State reads the record tomorrow, he will see that that is correct. I am not ashamed of having aspirations or dreams, as he calls them. If he does not have them, that is so much the worse for him and so much more impoverishment for him and his kind on the Government Benches.

Mr. Ridley: There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has those aspirations. I would even claim to share them. However, the point that he must take on board is that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich does not share them. She does not have the faintest intention of imposing concessionary fares schemes on local authorities if she ever has the misfortune to find herself on the Government Front Bench. The hon. Lady made it clear before the February election, and that was when she was trying to win votes. February 1979 was a time to make promises to the electorate, but the Labour party did not promise to impose concessionary fares. It said that it could not afford it, that half fares were enough, that the matter should be left to local authorities and that it could not give a guarantee. That was the Labour party electioneering. When I asked the hon. Lady about the matter today, she said, "We have not moved from that position. I could not answer that. I would get into trouble from the deputy leader of the party, who has not sanctioned extra public expenditure." What a hypocritical campaign.
I shall give the House the figures and the method of financing for concessionary fare schemes. For the past four years, including 1985–86, the provision made for local authorities' concessionary fare schemes was £163 million, £173 million, £188· million and £197 million. That is a progressive increase, which takes account of changes in living, but not much has changed. The outturn of local authorities for each of those years was £202 million, £219 million and £244· million.

Mrs. Dunwoody: What about the outturn for the fourth year?

Mr. Ridley: The outturn has not yet happened. I cannot tell the hon. Lady what the outturn for 1985–86 is. She is becoming increasingly stupid. She started off very stupid, but for her to suggest that I can give her the outturn figure for 1985–86, she must be off her nut.
Every local authority gets a GREA for concessionary fares based on the Labour party's policy that there should be half concessionary fares throughout the land. The Labour party's White Paper of February 1979 said that there should be GREAs for all local authorities to enable them to finance a concessionary half fare for every old-age pensioner. This Government, who have not departed one

iota from that Labour party policy, instituted a UREA, based on a concessionary half fare throughout the land. The result has been that money goes to local authorities based on a half fare. Again in accordance with the Labour party's policy we have allowed authorities to go to full concessionary fares if they wish, but at their own expense and from their own finances. In no sense has that position been changed by the Government in other legislation, in the abolition legislation or in this Bill.
Opposition Members referred to the precept control, which we shall exercise over the PTAs in their first three years of operation. In using the powers to set rate precepts, Ministers will certainly wish to take account of the existing pattern of expenditure in the metropolitan areas, especially their existing concessionary fares schemes, and they will not necessarily be bound to the levels of expenditure implied by the GRE formula. In other words, Ministers may go above it. It is wrong to suggest that our freedom of action is limited in that respect by the GRE provision. It would be equally wrong to make any provision which would prevent the authorities from making their choice of priorities within the level of the overall resources available for transport.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire West (Mr. Parris) said, these new clauses are good for pensioners because they extend the right to concessionary travel to every normal stage bus operating in a local authority which is operating a concessionary fare scheme. Therefore, in two respects we have improved on the Labour party's policy. It will now be possible to force operators to operate concessionary fare schemes, and we have said that we shall go beyond the financial provisions of the Labour party 's White Paper.
Despite the great campaign that was fought by the Labour party, and which was still being fought this evening, it is wrong to suggest that concessionary fares will be reduced or will end because of the Bill. The truth is that the Government have improved the provision, which is more than the Labour Government did. The hon. Lady denied that she had any plans even to match what we have done. I hope that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will take this message to Lancashire, Merseyside, Birmingham and Crewe: Labour Members have been talking rubbish for the past three months.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ridley: I ask the House to approve the new clauses, which are a great improvement on what the Labour party did.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I believe that the Secretary of State has given way.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: He has not given way. He sat down.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Perhaps he would answer—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suggest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had sat down, and had not given way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): It is difficult for me to judge whether—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: He did not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady raised a point of order, and I hope that she will allow me to respond


to it. It was difficult for me to decide whether the Secretary of State had given way or whether he had concluded his speech.

Mr. Ridley: I had sat down, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall give way.

Mrs. Dunwoody: How kind. The Government's present assessment of Merseyside's need for concessionary fares is £4· million, but that council spends £18· million on them. Is he genuinely saying that if the new passenger transport authority is rate-capped the Government would be prepared to provide that 75 per cent. difference to support the concessionary fares scheme?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady must understand that there are two sources of local authority finance—Government money and ratepayers' money. The difference between what the Government pay and what is spent is met by resources out of the rates. When we set the precept limit for metropolitan areas, we will not set it on the Government's contribution—on what is left of the block grant or the transport supplementary grant. We shall set a precept that will contain an element of Government money and an element of ratepayers' money, and I assure the hon. Lady that concessionary fares will be accommodated within the precepts set.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

FURTHER PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO PARTICIPATION NOTICES

(1) The period specified in accordance with section (Compulsory participation in travel concession schemes) (3) of this Act in a participation notice served on the operator of any service shall be not less than such period as may be prescribed.

(2) The authority or authorities by whom a participation notice is served on any operator shall send to the operator, together with the notice, a copy of—

(a) such particulars of the scheme to which the notice relates and of any variations of that scheme; and
(b) such particulars of the arrangements for the time being applicable to reimbursement of operators participating in that scheme or of any class of such operators which consists of or includes operators or registered local services qualifying for fuel duty grant;

as have been published under section 85(10) of this Act before the date of the notice.

(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, an operator on whom a participation notice has been served may apply to the Secretary of State for the cancellation or variation of that notice on either or both of the following grounds, that is to say—

(a) that there are special reasons why his participation in the scheme in question in respect of the service or any of the services to which the notice applies would be inappropriate; and
(b) that any provisions of the scheme or of any such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (2) (b) above are inappropriate for application in relation to operators other than operators voluntarily participating in the scheme.

(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, an application under subsection (3) above may be made by notice in writing given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date of the participation notice.

(5) An operator may not make such an application unless he has given notice in writing of his intention to do so to the authority or authorities by whom the participation notice was served—


(a) if a period allowed for that purpose is specified in the participation notice, before the end of that period: or
(b) in any other case, at any time before the date of the notice given to the Secretary of State under subsection (4) above.

(6) The Secretary of State may if he think fit appoint a person to determine an application under this section on his behalf.

(7) On any such application the Secretary of State, or any person appointed under subsection (6) above to determine the application on his behalf, may—

(a) cancel the participation notice or vary it by excluding from it any service operated by the applicant: or
(b) determine that the participation notice shall take effect without variation;

and in any case where the participation notice is cancelled on the ground mentioned in subsection (3) (b) above shall give to the authority or authorities by whom the notice was served a notice in writing indicating in what respects the scheme or arrangements there mentioned are inappropriate for application in relation to operators other than operators voluntarily participating in the scheme. '.— [Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

'(1) Regulations under this section may make provision as to—

(a) the form and contents of participation notices and other notices required for any purposes of sections (Compulsory participation in travel concession schemes) and (Further provisions with respect to participation notices) of this Act; and
(b) the manner in which any such notice is to be served.

(2) Regulations under this section may prescribe the procedure to be followed in connection with applications under section (Further provisions with respect to participation notices) of his Act and may in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of that) include provision—

(a) as to the conduct of any proceedings held in connection with any such application; and
(b) enabling the Secretary of State to require either the applicant or the authority or authorities by whom any participation notice which is the subject of any such application was served, or both or all of them, to pay such sum as the Secretary of State may determine towards any expenses incurred by him in connection with the determination of the application.

(3) Any sums paid to the Secretary of State by virtue of subsection (2) (b) above shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.— [Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

REPEAL OF SECTION 24(3) OF THE 1968 ACT

'—(1) Section 24(3) of the 1968 Act (which imposes on the National Bus Company, the Railways Board and the Scottish Transport Group a duty to co-operate with one another for the purpose of co-ordinating the passenger transport services provided respectively by them or by their subsidiaries) shall cease to have effect.

(2) In subsection (4) of that section, for the words "Subsections (2) and (3)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (2)".'.— [Mr. Ancram.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 148.

Mr. Ancram: The new clause will repeal the statutory duty of the National Bus Company, the British Railways Board and the Scottish Transport Group to co-operate with each other to co-ordinate their services. The co-operation duty comes from the world of forced integration which the Bill will end. When the duty was designed, it had two purposes. The first was to bring about by statutory means co-ordination among the different nationalised operators so that their timetables coincided; the bus met the train, the ferry met the bus, and so on. In the absence of competitive forces, statutory duties are perhaps needed, but the Bill relies on the more efficient co-ordinating mechanism of market demand. A bus that leaves the station before the train arrives will not attract many passengers, and that discipline will create co-ordination under the new dispensation.
Secondly, the duty was designed to avoid so-called wasteful competition — a concept which the Conservative party rejects. It embodies the idea that passengers should be given no choice. If there is a rail service, the passenger must use it; he may not be offered a rival coach service. That was an idea that was decisively rejected in the House in 1980 when we deregulated long distance coach services.
In practice the duty under section 24 of the Transport Act 1968 has been a dead letter in that respect ever since, with the National Bus Company's and the Scottish Bus Group's competing coach services at last able to give passengers what they wanted—cheap attractive services —thereby tapping the enormous potential for increasing patronage. It is our view that this co-operation duty is no longer necessary. It would be an anachronism under the terms of the legislation. This is an important new clause, and I ask the House to support it.

Mr. Craigen: The tabling of the new clause is a bit of cheek. Why have we got this piece of procedural queue-jumping at this stage of the Bill? If the new clause is as important as the Minister suggests, why was it not included in the original print of the Bill? The Secretary of State told us at the conclusion of the proceedings in Standing Committee that 127 amendments, mostly Government amendments, had been made. Why was there this sin of omission?
The Government ask local authorities to co-operate with each other. What is wrong, therefore, about ensuring that the Scottish Transport Group, British Rail and the National Bus Company should have some co-operation? The Minister might like to comment on the likelihood of competition taking place as a result of the Ayr-Glasgow electrification programme. Some co-ordination in that part of the west of Scotland might be appropriate. Can the Minister tell us something about the discussions and consultations that he had with ScotRail, the Scottish Transport Group and the National Bus Company about the repeal of section 24?
When the Scottish Minister is here, it will be useful to hear from him, because of his knowledge and expertise in Scots law, whether he confirms that any company subject to unfair competition will have interim protection until the Office of Fair Trading has made a judgment. The Under-Secretary of State rather skilfully skipped over my question earlier this afternoon.
New clause 12 is another blow at the principle of co-ordination of approach and the integration of services for the betterment of the travelling public in the private sector.

Unless we get a convincing reply from the Minister, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the new clause.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) that for the Government to produce new clause 12 at this late stage is dishonest; it is an absurd and outrageous move that will not work in practice.
In my area British Rail has just pushed forward some good schemes to open new stations and develop new suburban services. There is concern that the Bill, far from creating competition, will lead to the development of monopoly bus operators. The Scottish Bus Group is likely to try to take over municipal bus services. The net effect will be that it will be most unwilling to deliver passengers to its main competitor, the new suburban rail services. We will finish up with a shambles when we could have a properly co-ordinated service.
The repeal of section 24 would be very much to the detriment of consumers in Scotland. My hon. Friends and I wish to vote against it.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: In rural areas there can be problems that are not immediately obvious in urban areas. These concern integration between a bus service and a rail service to not heavily used intermediate stages, which can be very important except for those who travel to the station by car. One can get into a circular position in which British Rail says that there is not the demand to keep the station open because the public do not use it, and the public do not use it because the bus service does not connect with it at times that enable the station to be used. I have examples of this in my constituency.
To say that demand-oriented bus services will always meet a need for co-ordination with rail services is not true in rural areas. The bus company has many other considerations to meet. It has to schedule its entire service so that the buses end up at the garage at night at the end of the shift and overtime is not paid, and start again in the morning at a time when they can take people to work. These factors have to do with the mass demand for the service.
If the bus service does not link with the rail service, British Rail will close a station or withdraw services from it on the grounds that the public does not want to use it when it is not the case that the public do not w ant to use it but that they do not have the opportunity to use it because there is no bus to service it. That is why it is so necessary to have the co-ordinating functions in the hands of the county council, so that there is interconnection instead of rail and road being in competition with each other in the destructive sense of deliberately not making contact so that one's services can triumph over the other's.
In the early days, when there were no bus services, there were competitive rail services in the same areas that deliberately tried to cream off traffic so that the alternative line would suffer. That is not the position today, when there is a monopoly rail service. But to rely on the pressures of competition to ensure that bus services are efficient feeders to and from rail services when they have other needs to meet for their own profitability shows, I am afraid, a lack of understanding of the needs of rural areas.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: This new clause does not only affect the rural areas. It will have a detrimental effect on transport services on Tayside, the


city of Dundee and Strathclyde. I have a letter from the then manager of the Scottish region of British Rail to the effect that, if there were unregulated competition, the future of commuter services between Arbroath and Dundee, and of the Strathclyde commuter services, would be placed in jeopardy.
No benefit to the public interest will be achieved by repealing section 24(3) of the Transport Act 1968. We shall regress to transport anarchy if the new clause is passed. For those reasons, I shall vote against it.

Mr. David Marshall: New clause 12 is obviously intended to correct an omission from the original Bill and is another sign of just how badly the Bill was drafted. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said, it is not only the rural areas that will be affected by the new clause. The whole of the Strathclyde rail review, which has been carefully negotiated between the Scottish Bus Group, British Rail and the Strathclyde PTE, will also be affected. I wish to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to a report in The Scotsman on 15 May:
The Scottish Transport Group is preparing to fight a price war which is expected to break out on Scotland's most profitable bus routes when the Government opens them to free competition.
Councillor Waugh, the chairman of the Strathclyde highways and transport committee, claimed:
The Ayrshire rail electrification scheme could become a £62 million white elephant
and said:
the Glasgow to Ayr service is attracting 400,000 fewer passengers a year than expected.
Who will foot the £62 million bill for this white elephant? How many jobs on British Rail will be lost? The new clause is not needed. The Bill is much better without it.

Mr. Fry: I wish to comment upon the very interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I do not remember my hon. Friend going into the Lobby against the Bill on Second Reading. If, however, he reads the report of his speech, he will see that his argument for co-ordinating rail and road transport is similar to the arguments of many hon. Members in favour of co-ordination between rail and road.
I fail to understand how my hon. Friend approves of the Bill if he sincerely believes in what he has just said. He made the excellent point that there is a need for co-ordination. It is the failure to retain co-ordination in the Bill that gives me considerable reservations about it. We have been told before that if rail services are abolished they will be taken Ayer by road services, but because of the failure to provide proper co-ordination in the past my hon. Friend is suspicious about unco-ordinated services. If my hon. Friend sincerely believes in what he says, he will have to re-examine his attitude towards the Bill.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Since my hon. Friend has been good enough to visit the Chamber during the last few minutes—

Mr. Fry: I have been here most of the day.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend has not been in the House for very long. May I point out to him that the Second Reading of a Bill deals with its general principles,

while its Report stage deals with the details? It is not the general principle which will result in more appropriate—

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What relevance do the hon. Gentleman's remarks have to the clause under discussion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is rather difficult to relate the two. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's intervention will be brief and will relate more directly to the new clause that is under discussion.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It was apparently in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) to mention how I voted on Second Reading. You allowed that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a relevant observation, so it must be in order for me to reply to it.
I was reminding my hon. Friend, who had evidently forgotten, that the Second Reading of a Bill deals with its general principles. I agree with the general principles of the Bill. We are debating not its Second Reading but a new clause. That is why I wondered whether my hon. Friend was in the House when it was moved. It is co-ordination between road and rail, not the general principle, that is being debated, so how hon. Members voted on Second Reading is out of order now, though clearly that is not the view of Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Fry: That is an excellent example of why one should not give way. Apart from chairing a Select Committee for two hours this afternoon, I have been in the Chamber for all but 20 minutes of the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that that is rather longer than he has been in the Chamber.
I do not wish to prolong the debate. I have made my point. I was simply attempting to say that an important point of principle arose here. If the new clause has made my hon. Friend and others think again about the Bill, this short debate has been thoroughly worth while.

Mr. Ancram: I shall briefly respond to the questions which have been raised in this short but important debate.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) asked why the new clause had not been put down before. In Committee I seem to remember him reminding us all the time that the Government had said right from the beginning of the Committee stage that during the course of the Bill we would try to improve it. This new clause is in fulfilment of that commitment and, as I have already explained, will go a long way to improving the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman and several of my hon. Friends asked what was wrong with co-ordination. There is nothing wrong with co-ordination as long as it arises out of the transport requirements shown in the market place. What is wrong is when a certain form of transport is imposed, purely at the whim and wish of central planners, on those who wish to travel. It is precisely that sort of co-ordination against which the new clause strikes.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the new clause was necessary. I should like him to consider the position of the Scottish Bus Group which will be competing with other bus operators. If the new clause were not to be passed, that group would find itself having to consult and co-ordinate with other services while those that it was competing against would not be required so to do. If he thinks that that is fair competition, he had better look up the meaning of the word "competition" again.


The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and my Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) asked about competition with rail. Even in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gordon rail is proving successful in competition with buses because it offers better journey times to the centre of Aberdeen. The Government—this has been exemplified over the past week by a £3 million grant to improve rail services in Glasgow — are confident that the rail services will be able to compete with, and will be better for the competition from, buses. Indeed, the director of ScotRail. while making it clear that he would rather not have that competition, has shown confidence that he will be able to compete successfully.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: rose —

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has not been present all evening and I do not see why I should give way to him.
Several hon. Members, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, referred to the co-ordination of bus and train services. The market place will ensure that private operators who are operating on profitable routes will, in order to maintain that service against other possible competition, try to co-ordinate with the rail services. They will find that if they arrive either too soon before a train leaves or after it has left they will soon lose their passengers to other operators.
In areas where there will be unprofitable services which private operators will not take up, clause 59 will give county councils and, in Scotland, the regional and island councils the power to promote the availability of public passenger transport services for the convenience of the public. In putting their services out to tender they will be able to meet the necessary requirements.

Mr. Fry: rose —

Mr. Ancram: Time is moving on and hon. Members wish to debate other new clauses.
The speech of the hon. Member for Maryhill points up a fundamental difference between the Labour and Conservative parties. He believes that people should be made to fit the transport system. We believe that a transport system should be designed to fit people. It is in pursuance of that that this new clause has been moved, and I ask my hon. Friends to support it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 164.

Division No. 216]
[9.40 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amess, David
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Ancram, Michael
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arnold, Tom
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Ashby, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bright, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brinton, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Beggs, Roy
Browne, John


Bellingham, Henry
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Bendall, Vivian
Bulmer, Esmond


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Burt, Alistair


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Butler, Hon Adam


Blackburn, John
Butterfill, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bottomley, Peter
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)





Carttiss, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cash, William
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Chapman, Sydney
Knox. David


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Latham, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lawler, Geoffrey


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lawrence, Ivan


Cockeram, Eric
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Colvin, Michael
Lester, Jim


Coombs, Simon
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Cormack, Patrick
Lightbown, David


Critchley, Julian
Lilley, Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lord, Michael


Dicks, Terry
McCrindle, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
MacGregor, John


Dover, Den
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Dunn, Robert
Maclean, David John


Durant, Tony
Major, John


Eggar, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Malone, Gerald


Evennett, David
Marland, Paul


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fallon, Michael
Mates, Michael


Favell, Anthony
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Fletcher, Alexander
Mellor, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Merchant, Piers


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Forth, Eric
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Fox, Marcus
Miscampbell, Norman


Franks, Cecil
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Freeman, Roger
Moate, Roger


Gale, Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gorst, John
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gower, Sir Raymond
Murphy, Christopher


Greenway, Harry
Neale, Gerrard


Gregory, Conal
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, E, (B'y St Edm'ds)
Neubert, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Grist, Ian
Normanton, Tom


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Norris, Steven


Hampson, Dr Keith
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hanley, Jeremy
Osborn, Sir John


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Ottaway, Richard


Harris, David
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Harvey, Robert
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Haselhurst, Alan
Parris, Matthew


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Hawksley, Warren
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hayes, J.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayhoe, Barney
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hayward, Robert
Pollock, Alexander


Heddle, John
Porter, Barry


Henderson, Barry
Portillo, Michael


Hicks, Robert
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Powell, William (Corby)


Hirst, Michael
Powley, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Price, Sir David


Holt, Richard
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howard, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Rathbone, Tim


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rhodes James, Robert


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jackson, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Silvester, Fred


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Sims, Roger


Key, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)






Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Viggers, Peter


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Steen, Anthony
Wall, Sir Patrick


Stern, Michael
Watson, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Watts, John


Stradling` Thomas, J.
Wiggin, Jerry


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter



Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mr. Ian Lang and


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.


Vaughan, Sir Gerard



NOES


Abse, Leo
Gourlay, Harry


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Harman, Ms Harriet


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barnett, Guy
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Heffer, Eric S.


Beith, A. J.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bell, Stuart
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Benn, Tony
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Howells, Geraint


Bermingham, Gerald
Hoyle, Douglas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
John, Brynmor


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Kennedy, Charles


Bruce, Malcolm
Kirkwood, Archy


Buchan, Norman
Lamond, James


Caborn, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Leighton, Ronald


Campbell, Ian
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Canavan, Dennis
Litherland, Robert


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cartwright, John
Loyden, Edward


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McCartney, Hugh


Clay, Robert
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McKelvey, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McNamara, Kevin


Corbett, Robin
Madden, Max


Cowans, Harry
Marek, Dr John


Craigen, J. M.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Crowther, Stan
Martin, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maxton, John


Deakins, Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dewar, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dixon, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dormand, Jack
Michie, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mikardo, Ian


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Brien, William


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
O'Neill, Martin


Fisher, Mark
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Flannery, Martin
Park, George


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Patchett, Terry


Forrester, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Foster, Derek
Penhaligon, David


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Pike, Peter


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Prescott, John


Fry, Peter
Radice, Giles


George, Bruce
Randall, Stuart


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Redmond, M.


Godman, Dr Norman
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Golding, John
Richardson, Ms Jo





Robertson, George
Straw, Jack


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Rooker, J. W.
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Rowlands, Ted
Tinn, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Wallace, James


Sheerman, Barry
Wareing, Robert


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Weetch, Ken


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Welsh, Michael


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
White, James


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Gordon


Smith, C. (lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Winnick, David


Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Mr. John McWilliam and


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

EXTENSION OF TAXI LICENSING IN ENGLAND AND WALES

'(1) Where, immediately before the commencement of this section, the provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 with respect to hackney carriages (as incorporated in the Public Health Act 1875) were not in force throughout the whole of the area of a district council in England and Wales whose area lies outside the area to which the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 applies, those provisions (as so incorporated) shall—

(a) if not then in force in any part of the council area, apply throughout that area; and
(b) if in force in part only of its area, apply also in the remainder of that area.

(2) Where part only of a district council's area lies outside the area to which the Act of 1869 applies, that part shall, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, be treated as being the area of the council.'.— [Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
During the 18th sitting of the Standing Committee, as reported at column 996 of Hansard, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) pointed out that, because the taxi-sharing provisions were rightly restricted to licensed vehicles, people living in rural areas where taxis were not licensed would not benefit from the new provisions for sharing. My hon. Friend suggested that this might be the moment to require that taxis throughout the country should be licensed so that everyone could benefit from the provisions, and the Government agreed to consider the matter.
Before dealing with the new clause itself, it may help if I explain briefly how taxi licensing currently operates. Taxis may be licensed by district councils under the provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 applied through the Public Health Act 1875 and the Local Government Act 1972. The net effect of that somewhat archaic legislation, which we have already agreed to review, is that most district councils licence taxis throughout their areas. However, about 70 districts out of a total of 360 control taxis in only part of their areas. A further 60 councils—or about 20 per cent. of the total—do not license taxis at all. The new clause deals with that 20 per cent.
The councils are generally in rural areas, where shared taxis might make an especially important contribution to


the provision of local transport. The new clause will extend the taxi licensing provisions of the 1847 Act throughout England—outside London—and Wales. All district councils will license taxis throughout their areas and provide for taxi ranks or other authorised places to facilitate the operation of shared taxi schemes.
We have discussed the new clause with the Association of District Councils, which has agreed that an extension of taxi licensing seems to be the only way to ensure that all areas are placed on an equal footing.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will there be some differentiation between stands for shared taxis and stands for taxis that will operate, without the restrictions, for passengers on their own? Is the licensing arrangement so framed that certain taxis will be forced to stand at taxi ranks? Under the licensing procedure, will further safety rules be followed? The Minister will remember that there was much discussion in Committee about extending the provisions for taxis to include what would be, in effect, minibuses. Will such taxis be covered by the licensing provision in the new clause?

Mr. Spicer: There will be no distinction between taxi ranks for shared taxis and for other taxis. That issue was debated in Committee.
The hon. Lady mentioned minibuses. There are provisions in the Bill to deal with that subject. I hope that I understood the hon. Lady's question correctly; if not, perhaps she will intervene again. Licensing conditions—for instance, conditions of fitness—will be a matter for the district. As we have already said, we may produce some guidance on the conditions. The very tough conditions applied in London may be repeated in other parts of the country, but that will be a matter for the discretion of the districts.

Mrs. Dunwoody: There are restrictions on who may use shared taxis. Is the Minister now saying that any taxi may operate either as a shared taxi or as a single passenger taxi provided that it takes phone bookings? There will be difficulties if the public are not clear which taxis are shared taxis. That could happen if there is no differentiation in the stands, and if the other clauses in the Bill are complied with.
I am not clear—I do not say that there is necessarily any disadvantage involved—whether any taxi operating from any stand may perform in any capacity. There may be a difficulty with passengers sharing taxis.

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Lady knows that there are at least three different types of sharing. There are provisions which allow taxis to act in effect as registered buses, there are provisions concerning pre-booking and there are provisions for carrying at separate fares from taxi ranks.
It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [1 April] and the resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the new clause, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Ten o'clock.

New Clause 16

ENFORCEMENT OF PARTICIPATION IN TRAVEL CONCESSION SCHEMES

If during any period an operator of any service who is under an obligation under section (Compulsory participation in travel concession schemes) of this Act to provide travel concessions in accordance with a scheme under section 85 of this Act for persons travelling on that service systematically fails to comply with that obligation he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."— [Mr. David Mitchell.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON THE ABOLITION OF ROAD SERVICE LICENSING

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 111, line 1 leave out paragraph 7.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 4, 127 to 131, 134 to 137, 142, 147 and 151.

Mr. Ancram: All these amendments simplify previous legislation. Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 do that by simplifying the drafting of the Bill. At the moment, schedule 2 contains redundant wording taken from schedule 2 to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and. no doubt, goes far back into history. There is no reason to spell out the functions of the traffic commissioner in giving the Secretary of State power to appoint deputies, and the amendments remove two unnecessary Lists of enactments. The other amendments also arise out of historical leftovers and tidy matters up. I hope that, on that basis, the amendments will be acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 125, in page 112, leave out lines 37 to 43 and insert
'there shall be substituted, for the words from "stage carriage" where they first occur to "1981" the words "local service (within the meaning of the Transport Act 1985)" and for the words "stage carriage" where they next occur the word "vehicle".'.
This is a drafting amendment, which corrects an inaccuracy in an amendment made by schedule 1 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which substitutes the local service terminology of the Bill for the outmoded stage carriage one. It is technical, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Dunwoody: We accept many of these drafting amendments because they fulfil precisely the function that the Minister has outlined. They put into the Bill more accurate definitions that should have been in the original legislation. I hope that we shall not be told at the end of the Report stage that the Government have accepted another 128 amendments when about 127 of them arise out of their own drafting errors.

Mr. Mitchell: I note what the hon. Lady has said.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 28, at end insert
'or goods by road within Great Britain'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 126.

Mr. Mitchell: The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) drew attention in Committee to the need for careful examination of the required declaration of interests by traffic commissioners. He suggested that the required disclosure might be too narrow. I undertook to look carefully at what he said and if on further confirmation I found myself in agreement with the point that he made I agreed to bring forward an amendment. The amendments fulfil that undertaking. I think that they will be found agreeable to both sides of the House. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Halton for having drawn this to our attention.

Mrs. Dunwoody: In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), may I say that I know that he will be delighted, because he believed that it is important for it to be clear in the Bill exactly where the balance of interests lies. I am grateful to the Minister for having accepted the suggestions.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 3, leave out lines 36 to 41 and insert—

'(1) The traffic commissioner for any traffic area constituted for the purposes of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 shall exercise the functions conferred on him by this Part of this Act and is in this Part of this Act referred to as "the licensing authority". '.— [Mr. David Mitchell.]

Schedule 2

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS

Amendments made: No. 126, in page 113, line 11, after 'passengers', insert
'or goods by road within Great Britain'.

No. 127, in page 113, line 20, leave out from 'that' to end of line 24.

No. 128, in page 113, line 34, leave out from 'matters' to 'as' in line 36.

No. 129, in page 114, line 14, leave out from 'considers' to end of line 15 and insert 'appropriate'.

No. 130, in page 115, line 2, leave out from '113' to end of line 10 and insert—
'(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (licensing authority for Part IV of that Act), there shall be substituted—

(a) for the words "The person who is the chairman of the traffic commissioners" the words "The traffic commissioner"; and
(b) for the words from "including" to "duty" the words "shall exercise the function".'.

No. 131, in page 117, line 20, leave out from 'and' to the end of line 23 and insert
'for the word "their" shall be substituted the word "his".'.— [Mr. David Mitchell.]

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 132, in page 117 leave out lines 35 and 36.
This is a minor drafting amendment. There is in fact no need to change the word "commissioners" to "com-missioner" in section 62 of the Public Passenger Vehicles

1981 which Act relates to PSV driver licensing in the metropolitan traffic area since that section is repealed in Schedule 7.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

INQUIRIES HELD BY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 28, after 'enactment', insert 'mentioned in subsection (6) below.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.

Mr. Mitchell: The purpose of the amendment is to restrict the disclosure of commercially confidential matters to purposes not directly related to PSV operator licensing. This again I think will not be controversial. It is largely a technicality.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Why is the Minister satisfied, as he appears to be in amendment No. 7, that it will be appropriate to deal with these matters by way of negative instrument?
The Secretary of State may by order
add a reference to other enactments or remove it by use of the negative procedure. We are all aware how deficient that procedure is and how little opportunity it allows to hon. Members to raise matters. Can the Minister say why he is satisfied that it is adequate in the circumstances?

Mr. Mitchell: It is not a matter of major substance, and therefore it is not of such a nature that one would normally expect to deal with it in any other way.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 4, line 31, after 'any', insert 'such'.— [Mr. David Mitchell.]

Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 4, line 37, at end insert—

'(6) The enactments referred to in subsection (5) (b) and (c) above are—

(a) sections 12 to 21 of this Act; and
(b) sections 22 to 25 of the Transport Act 1985.

(7) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend subsection (6) above by adding a reference to an enactment or by removing any such reference: and any statutory instrument made in exercise of the power conferred by this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.— [Mr. David Mitchell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 19.

Division No. 217]
[10.10 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Amess, David
Bright, Graham


Ancram, Michael
Brinton, Tim


Ashby, David
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baldry, Tony
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Beggs, Roy
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Bellingham, Henry
Bulmer, Esmond


Bendall, Vivian
Burt, Alistair


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butler, Hon Adam


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Butterfill, John


Blackburn, John
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carttiss, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cash, William


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Chapman, Sydney


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Churchill, W. S.


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)






Clegg, Sir Walter
Lord, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
McCrindle, Robert


Colvin, Michael
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Coombs, Simon
Macfarlane, Neil


Currie, Mrs Edwina
MacGregor, John


Dickens, Geoffrey
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Dorrell, Stephen
Maclean, David John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Major, John


Dover, Den
Malins, Humfrey


Dunn, Robert
Marland, Paul


Durant, Tony
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Eggar, Tim
Maude, Hon Francis


Emery. Sir Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Evennett, David
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Merchant, Piers


Fallon, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Favell, Anthony
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Miscampbell, Norman


Fletcher, Alexander
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moate, Roger


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Monro, Sir Hector


Forth, Eric
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Franks, Cecil
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Freeman, Roger
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Fry, Peter
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gale, Roger
Murphy, Christopher


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Neale, Gerrard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nelson, Anthony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Neubert, Michael


Gorst, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Gower. Sir Raymond
Normanton, Tom


Greenway, Harry
Norris, Steven


Gregory, Conal
Osborn, Sir John


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Ottaway, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Grist, Ian
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Parris, Matthew


Hanley. Jeremy
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Pattie, Geoffrey


Harris, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Harvey. Robert
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Haselhurst, Alan
Pollock, Alexander


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Portillo, Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Powell, William (Corby)


Hayes, J.
Powley, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Price, Sir David


Hayward, Robert
Proctor, K. Harvey


Heddle, John
Raffan, Keith


Henderson, Barry
Rathbone, Tim


Hicks, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Hind, Kenneth
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hirst, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Holt, Richard
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Howard, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Silvester, Fred


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Sims, Roger


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jackson, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Steen, Anthony


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Stern, Michael


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Sumberg, David


Key, Robert
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Knox, David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Lang, Ian
Viggers, Peter


Lawler, Geoffrey
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Lawrence, Ivan
Wall, Sir Patrick


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Watson, John


Lester, Jim
Watts, John


Lightbown, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Lilley, Peter
Wood, Timothy





Yeo, Tim
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and



Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Tellers for the Ayes:



NOES


Canavan, Dennis
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Skinner, Dennis


Cartwright, John
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isies)


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Wallace, James


Howells, Geraint
Weetch, Ken


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wigley, Dafydd


Kennedy, Charles
Wilson, Gordon


Kirkwood, Archy



Madden, Max
Tellers for the Noes:


Meadowcroft, Michael
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Mr. Malcolm Bruce.


Penhaligon, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 6

REGISTRATION OF LOCAL SERVICES

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 18, after 'service', insert—
'(aa) the period of notice in relation to the registration has expired;'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 159, in page 5, line 20 at end insert—

'(2A) Without prejudice to any Regulations which may be made under subsection 7 (e) below, the prescribed particulars to be supplied for the purposes of registration shall incluce—

(a) the size and type of vehicle used in the service; and
(b) particulars of the proposed route, stopping places, terminal points, timetable and level of fares.'.

Government amendments Nos. 9, 11 to 18, 20. 21, 23 to 28, 33, 38, 40, 60 and 110.

Mr. Ridley: The purpose of the amendments is to clarify the legal nature of registration. Registration is the cornerstone of the system established by the Bill to ensure that competition is fair, that services are operated safely and with proper regard to the passenger, and that the local authorities have a proper base to decide which services to subsidise through tendering. Therefore, it is important that it should be legally watertight. Careful study of the clause as originally drafted suggested that it might not have been so. The status of a registration between the date on which the application for it was accepted by the traffic commissioner, and that on which it became effective, was dubious. For instance, it was not clear that it could be varied during that period, which of course it can, within. the general rules for variation of services.
The amendments clarify that, and at the same time simplify the way in which breaches of regulation rules are described in clauses 23 and 91, which provide sanctions to operator licensing and fuel duty rebate.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The amendment will make considerable changes in the conditions of registration. I am glad that the amendment tabled by the Opposition was chosen, because we noticed yet another mistake in the Bill and wished to bring it to the attention of the House. The amendments that I tabled originally were designed to ensure that the operators of registered local bus services make proper provision for the safety and convenience not only of their passengers but of other road users in the community. The safeguards that we wish to include would make it clear that the prescribed particulars to be supplied


for the purposes of registration should include the size and type of vehicle, the proposed route, the stopping places, the terminal points, the timetable and fares.
It is important to understand that registration is one of the few pieces of legislation that will remain in place. Therefore, not only must it be properly organised, but it must contain information that will enable passengers and the local authorities to know exactly what the service does. We suggested that safeguards should be included to ensure that the local highways authority and chief of police were involved in the proposed routes, and especially in the safety of the vehicle that would be used in the service. We wished to ensure that all roads, stopping places and terminal points used in the service met the requirements of the highways authority and especially those of the police, who are responsible for road safety and traffic management. The highways authority would also wish to be satisfied about the structural suitability of some roads for some vehicles.
The requirement was simply that the operator should consult the relevant authorities and obtain their approval before registering the service. The Government have gone some way towards inserting the safeguards that we wanted, but I am not sure that they have gone far enough. We must know whether operators have suitable vehicles for the services that they propose to operate. It is especially important to recognise that the bus industry provides a service to those members of the community who, at some stage, are least able to help themselves. Children, the disabled, family groups with shopping and other luggage, and the elderly especially are major users of buses. In west Yorkshire, the young and the elderly account for almost 50 per cent. of bus trips. The vehicles must be safe and convenient for use by the elderly and the disabled. Considerable advances have been made in recent years in bus design. Vehicles with low steps at the entrance, gently ramped rather than stepped floors and good provision of grab rails make it much easier for those who are unable in normal circumstances to cope with some of the older buses. Seats with easy access near the front of the vehicles are typical of the modern generation of vehicles operated both by well capitalised independent operators and certainly by most public sector companies.
By contrast, in Hereford and one or two other areas where competition took place older coaches with high steps and poor access were used. The Conservative party made great play of the suggestion that only employees who worked for an independent operator would be prepared to assist people on and off buses, but that is not my experience. Even though drivers may be prepared to help passengers, that delays other traffic. It means too that cash is left unattended. There is no substitute for properly designed modern vehicles which the majority of passengers may board and alight from without assistance.
Other information— copies of timetables and fares tables—should be carried and should be available for passengers to inspect. Destinations should be clearly displayed on the exterior of vehicles. Passengers should have adequate information. Some of those requirements were not included in the previous legislation. The requirement to display destinations is particularly important in busy areas where many routes operate from the same street. We know from the Hereford trial that

where lots of buses are competing in a small area there is considerable confusion. I am afraid that that may be the case in future.
Amendment No. 159 consolidates the matters that I have referred to by requiring the appropriate particulars to be supplied for the purpose of registration. Although I am glad that the Government have accepted that the amendment should be considered as part of this very large group of amendments, I would have hoped that Government Ministers might have explained in greater detail why the need for all this information to be added to the registration has been accepted. We believe that it is essential, but I do not think that Ministers have yet gone into sufficient detail to explain the change of heart on their part.

Mr. Fry: I, too, would like to address a few remarks to amendment No. 159. If the Government intend, as I presume they do, to go ahead with the Bill in its present form it is vital that at the earliest possible stage maximum information is given to the traffic commissioner about the registration. The first part of the amendment refers to
the size and type of vehicle to be used in the service".
If I am contemplating running any service — I understand that is what my right ho. Friend wants— surely I should know what kind of vehicle is to be used lby anyone else who is interested in the same route. If I discover that a minibus is being registered for a route and I believe that the route is susceptible to a considerable increase in demand—again I understand that is what the Government want — surely it is important that the maximum information is registered at the earliest possible opportunity. In that way the competition that is so dear to the Government's heart might be encouraged. Therefore, information of that nature would he very valuable at the time of registration, it would stimulate other people to consider whether they wanted to register for a parallel service over the whole route or part of it.
Other information suggested for registration is
particulars of the proposed route, stopping places, terminal points, timetable and level of fares".
Some of that may be open to discussion. Having been to Hereford I am convinced that that information is badly needed. There might have been certain stopping places in Hereford, but many of the buses did not go there to stop at them. They overtook each other to pick up people at the next bus stop, or even did not finish their journey because, having got three quarters of the way there, they saw people at the other side of the road waiting to go the other way, so they rapidly turned the bus round. I know that my right hon. Friend does not wish to encourage such behaviour.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: My hon. Friend has made some severe allegations about what has been going on in Hereford. I should be most grateful for his evidence, chapter and verse, on these incidents. Has he received complaints from passengers about this happening, and if so, on which buses where they travelling and when?

Mr. Fry: When the Select Committee went to Hereford and Worcester, we obtained a lot of information, some of which is published in our report. The complaint that I have just detailed was certainly made, although I cannot remember whether it was in the formal evidence that was published or in the informal evidence given to us by a number of operators and members of the public. However, I assure my hon. Friend that that accusation was made.

Mr. Conal Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the custom and precedent for an hon. Member to declare an interest before he speaks? I have not heard my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) declare such an interest, so I invite him to do so.

Mr. Fry: I declared my interest not only on Second Reading but in a speech on an earlier amendment. If my hon. Friend had been present, he would have heard me do so.
My suggestions tonight are designed not to sabotage the Government's proposals but to ensure that they are as workable as possible and achieve the ends towards which the Bill has been framed. It is essential for any potential operator to know what the extent of the potential competition will be. This is the most valuable thing. The point about registration is that people can see what services are proposed, and potential operators can see whether there is a living or even a profit to be made—out of identical routes, or parts of them.
I should have thought that, in the interests of encouraging just that amount of competition that the Bill is intended to generate, the maximum amount of information should be given at the time of registration.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman know that the shire county councils have done a short report on the Hereford position, in which they pointed out that Buchanans is still under prosecution for offences, and that there was clear evidence that no new routes had been created and that competition had been by duplication? Therefore, the points that the hon. Gentleman is making are not only valid but accurate.

Mr. Fry: I thank the hon. Lady for that information.
I shall not say that the whole of the Hereford experiment was a disaster, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) should not assume that. I am trying to show that there were defects in that experiment, and it should not be regarded as an ideal. Surely, the whole point of an experiment is that we should learn from the things that go wrong. I am not condemning the private operators in Hereford, but we should observe what happened there and try to see that such errors do not happen again. An essential pre-requisite is therefore the maximum of information at the time of registration.

Dr. Marek: When about two hours ago, I said that, under the Hereford system, buses could turn round if they saw intending passengers on the other side of the road, clear off the bus and pick up those passengers and go on the other way, the Secretary of State waved his hands, laughed and rocked back in his seat as if it were a completely fatuous suggestion. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has said that precisely the same complaints were made to the Select Committee on Transport when it visited Hereford. It is not a fatuous suggestion; it is likely to happen. People have complained, which means that it has happened. Unless the Government do something about it, it will happen time and time again. Some semblance of regulation must be provided for.
It is also interesting that when the Minister commented upon the experiment in Hereford he said that it would have been a success if Midland Red had not been allowed to cross-subsidise services in order to eliminate competition.

In Committee, many Conservative Members pointed to Hereford and said that it was a wonderful system which would be copied by bus services all over the country if the Bill were enacted. Now we are getting a little nearer the truth: that all is not rosy in the garden of Hereford. Things are going from bad to worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to this point. It shows that the position in Hereford is dismal indeed. The fact that at one time there was a great deal of competition but that now there is competition in only one corridor in the Hereford area speaks for itself.

Mr. Clay: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the only private operator who is left in that one corridor in the Hereford area, Mr. Buchanan, has been charged with using false registration plates? It seems, does it not, to be an extremely rosy situation in Hereford.

Dr. Marek: I agree with my hon. Friend, but as this operator is still under the threat of prosecution I believe that the rules of the House do not allow me to refer to his case.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I know what value the hon. Gentleman places upon accuracy. Perhaps, therefore. he will carefully read the press reports. He will find that it is not Mr. Buchanan but another operator who is charged with using buses bearing the wrong number plates and that a number of charges have been deferred until 1 July. The presumption of innocence ought to be maintained until guilt has been proved.

Dr. Marek: I accept the hon. Gentleman's word on this, because he is the Member of Parliament for Hereford.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw.

Dr. Marek: On such a matter as this there is no need for me to withdraw. I understood that Mr. Buchanan was still under the threat of prosecution. If I am wrong, that is it. Other companies, however, spring to mind that have been prosecuted for something more serious than using the wrong number plates. However, the use of wrong number plates ought not to be allowed.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Opposition Members have always referred in derogatory terms to the Hereford experiment. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) may be pleased to hear that, with the object of proving the rumours that they had swallowed during the past few months, a large party from Nottingham went to Hereford a few weeks ago. It was made up predominantly of city officials and Labour councillors. They returned very quiet and very chastened. The word in Nottingham is that the Hereford experiment is working and that the Bill contains many good things. The hon. Member for Wrexham ought to leave Hereford alone. Labour councillors in Nottingham have come to realise that there is a lot of good in the Hereford experiment.

Dr. Marek: I will not leave the Hereford experiment, because in my view it has proved to be an absolute disaster. We no longer have competition, except along one corridor into Hereford, and, as I said, towns such as Kington and Presteigne do not have services as good as they used to have.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am beginning to doubt the high value that the hon. Gentleman places on accuracy, because I had to pull him up on this point in Committee. He will


be aware, in respect of the example that he regularly trots out, of Kington and Presteigne, that the reductions in service were made before the start of the trial area and were made by the county council and not as a result of bus operators pulling out. Will he not learn that, or is he programmed to trot that out regularly because somebody has given him the information?

Mr. David Mitchell: rose —

Dr. Marek: I am always prepared to give way to local Members if they know what is going on and have first-hand information and I will give way to the Minister when I have pointed out that, while nobody can be right all the time, services in the rural areas of Herefordshire are not as good as they were. There have been no new routes and nobody has made a profit.

Mr. Mitchell: As the hon. Gentleman is holding forth on this area, with which he seems to be particularly familiar, may I ask him to explain how, when I was speaking at a meeting recently, a gentleman in the audience said, "I wish to take the opportunity to thank the Government for having introduced the trial area in the Hereford and Worcester area, because, for the first time for 25 years, we have a bus service in my village."?

Dr. Marek: If there is a new route that did not exist before the establishment of the trial area, the Minister should name the village and put it on the record. If I am wrong, fair enough—a contribution has been made to the debate and hon. Members on both sides of the House are wiser. I understand that no new routes have been pioneered since deregulation and since the establishment of the trial area in Hereford.

Mr. Steen: This is like a nightmare. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman for 150-odd hours in Committee saying the same thing, it is tiresome to hear him say it yet again on the Floor of the House. Can he adjust the programme a little? Without knowing the details of the Hereford experiment, I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman should be discrediting bus companies that may have prosecutions pending against them, but against whom nothing has been proved. It might be unfortunate if he pursued the point.

Dr. Marek: I was simply pointing out that prosecutions were pending, and nothing else that I said, or am saying, implies anything from the point of view of the two companies concerned. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Steen: indicated assent.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: When was the hon. Gentleman last in Hereford, when did he last travel on Herefordshire buses and when did he last speak to Hereford people on the subject?

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is all anecdotal, I suppose; one cannot know unless one has actually travelled on the buses.

Dr. Marek: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Now answer my question.

Dr. Marek: I travelled in Herefordshire towards the end of last year. I cannot remember the date.

Mr. David Mitchell: By bus?

Dr. Marek: No, not by bus. [Interruption.] I travel by bus regularly and I travelled by bus every week on a great many occasions. Hon. Members have tried to catch me out on that, as on other matters, and again they have failed. The source of my remarks is the transport consortium of shire county councils, and I have made my own
investigations. That body said:
No new routes have been created and competition has been by duplication, so that the full benefit of the increased number of buses has not been realised. Hereford and Worcester County Council did at one stage make strenuous efforts to co-ordinate some of the competing services, but agreements between operators did not begin to emerge until last year.
I shall omit one short paragraph. The consortium continued:
Early morning, evening and Sunday services are very limited. No buses before 7.30 am, a handful of journeys after 6.15 pm, just three journeys on Sundays on selected routes.
If hon. Members believe that that is a comprehensive integrated bus service, they should think again. It is an abysmal service. The citizens of Hereford do not have a service that they would describe, if asked for a proper expression of feeling, as better than the previous one. If they happened to live next to one of those three or four routes where fares are cheaper, they might describe it as a better service. I believe that the overall answer would be that the trial area has not been a success.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman has made assertions about no buses being earlier and no buses being later. Is he aware that, on the country routes, no one is worse off in terms of the arrival of buses although perhaps no one is better off? The hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind, in making his dismissive assertions that the bus revenue support is lower, that the taxpayer is getting better value for money for providing the same level or a better level of service. Is the hon. Gentleman aware also that in the informal evidence taken by the Select Committee the general view of those who lived in the countryside was that no one was any worse off but that a number of people were substantially better off?

Dr. Marek: I must continue.

Mr. Steen: Why?

Dr. Marek: Because the Government have imposed a guillotine on this important Bill. There are many clauses that we cannot consider. It ill befits Conservative Members to ask why, when I say that we should continue the debate.

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Member has recounted some comments that have been passed on to him. It might be helpful if I record just three points that were made to me by passengers which bear upon the points that have been raised. A young man visiting from west Yorkshire said:
Where I come from the buses don't run so late and they cost more. I don't use them often here, but it is cheap and the last bus is after 11 o'clock at night.
An RAF man said:
The service is fine, a lot cheaper than Cambridgeshire where I come from.
Another person stated:
We only have hard leather seats in Cardiff. This is much more comfortable.
Those are repetitive comments from people who in practical terms found it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is going a long way beyond the terms of the amendment. No doubt the Under-Secretary of State will seek in the fullness of time to catch my eye to reply to the debate. Dr. Marek.

Mr. Walter Harrison: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Dr. Marek has the Floor.

Dr. Marek: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison).

Mr. Harrison: The Under-Secretary of State stated at the Dispatch Box, when referring to west Yorkshire—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For obvious reasons, I should not have allowed the Under-Secretary of State to refer to west Yorkshire. Perhaps I should have told the hon. Gentleman the moment he referred to west Yorkshire, rather than allowed him to continue, that that aspect was beyond the terms of the amendment. I hope that the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) will not pursue that point.

Mr. Harrison: I did not raise a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What you allowed was an infringement of the rules of the House. If you allowed the Under-Secretary of State to make a statement, surely I am entitled to raise a matter on the very point that you allowed. Can the Under-Secretary of State specify the area of west Yorkshire to which he referred? I represent part of west Yorkshire, which is a fairly large place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not.

Mr. Fry: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have interventions in interventions.

Dr. Marek: Amendment No. 159 is important because the public and the local authorities must know where the bus stops will be, when the services will run, and so on, and it is perfectly reasonable to refer to the experience in Hereford in that context. I do not deny the examples given by the Minister, but they are highly selective. No doubt I could go out asking for views and find one person who thinks that the evening service is terrible because he has been waiting for 15 minutes whereas at 5.30 in the afternoon he may think that the service is very good, but I do not believe that selective information of that kind assists our deliberations. I believe that if the views of the people throughout the Hereford area were gathered and assessed objectively the majority view would be that the trial area was not a success.

Mr. Fry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the subsidised rural services in the Hereford trial area were not subject to any competition, which is completely contrary to the proposals in the Bill, and that the information required by amendment No. 159 will be all the more important if competition is to be generated?

Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The House will note that, when the hon. Gentleman first made those comments, he was immediately attacked by his hon. Friends the Members for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and for York (Mr. Gregory) because they thought that he was saying something against the spirit of the Bill. In fact, he was doing no such thing, but he made the valid point that if we are to have deregulation—if we are to have this evil Bill thrust upon us—

Mr. Steen: We have been discussing it for 156 hours.

Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman does not need to tell us that. If we are to have this evil Bill, the traffic commissioner—an authority far removed from the local people — must have the information required by amendent No. 159. The requirements are perfectly straightforward. What possible objection can the Government have to a requirement to specify
the size and type of vehicle to be used in the service
or
particulars of the proposed route"?
At least the traffic commissioner, the local authority and the public will know what route the operator proposes to follow. We do not want buses taking short cuts through town centres just to get ahead of the competition
Specified stopping places are also important. In Hereford there were instances of six or seven buses trying to pile on to one bus stop. If the amendment is accepted, the traffic commissioner will have a chance to try to achieve some order out of the chaos. In that respect, amendment No. 159 is a very good one.

Mr. Hind: We discussed this in Standing Committee. Once one starts including that kind of detail in the legislation, one loses the flexibility of regulations in which the requirements for registration can evolve according to experience. As soon as one tries to hammer these things down, the system becomes inflexible and it is difficult to have any cogent, amendable policy. Regulations are flexible and do not give rise to the same problems. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

Dr. Marek: No, I do not agree. The amendment states:
Without prejudice to any Regulations which may be made under subsection 7 (e) below, the prescribed particulars to be supplied for the purposes of regulation shall include".
There is no question of an attempt to impose more regulations. It is a means of providing more information for the traffic commissioners and the local authorities. If necessary, they can talk to the independent operators in an endeavour to achieve a more coherent system. Above all, the public should receive the information. The amendment does not seek compulsion.
I wish to bring my remarks to an end, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I have suffered a barrage of interventions from Conservative Members. I shall do so by referring to the 3 May edition of Labour Weekly, which is an informative weekly newspaper. The 3 May edition tells us that proprietor Dennis Buchanan has been charged with the fraudulent use of number plates on a mechanically propelled vehicle. That carries no implications for operations in the Hereford area and no implications for proprietor Dennis Buchanan.
I have said that the country areas now have worse bus services than before. In doing so, I was taking up an article written by Mr. Dunbar that appeared in "Buses". If I have that wrong, I shall be the first to admit it, but I do not think that I have. Hon. Members who are interested in these matters can ascertain for themselves whether I have it right or wrong at the end of the debate.
Amendment No. 159 is sensible as it does not seek to compel anyone to do anything. It seeks merely to provide information, especially for the public. The public should be aware of timetables so that they know when buses will


run. They should know with certainty the destinations of particular buses. Buses should not run short of their stated destinations.

Mr. Steen: We have covered this circuit before. A commercial operator will not run a bus without stating where it is going. He will want customers and he will not run a bus that does not have a board stating its destination. He will know that no one will board it in the absence of that information. The public will not stand at lamp posts

waiting for a bus if they know that the bus will not stop. Instead, they will stand at bus stops. The hon. Gentleman's points are a lot of nonsense.

Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman may hold that opinion, but we have heard that certain buses curtail their journeys, turn around and travel in the opposite direction. When people board a bus that is supposed to travel in a certain direction—to the destination stated on the front of the vehicle—they should be confident that it will travel to that destination. It is on that basis that I commend amendment No. 159 to the House.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I shall intervene briefly, and mainly to express regret at the enormous number of inaccuracies trotted out by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who detained the House for far longer than it deserved.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Infernal cheek.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Lady may so describe my comment, but if the facts had been presented instead of apochryphal —

Mrs. Dunwoody: I wish to pay tribute to the number of times that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) courteously gave way to Conservative Members. Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's courtesy, the hon. Gentleman chooses to talk about the time that my hon. Friend has detained the House. If some Conservative Members knew as much about transport as my hon. Friend. they would be much better informed.

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am prepared always to acknowledge the graciousness of the hon. Member for Wrexham and that of the hon. Lady. I defer, to an extent, to the hon. Gentleman's expert knowledge. However, he has talked about my con-stituency and my county in terms of great expertise without having studied the local issues at first hand. I can only regret that it was necessary for me to intervene. However, I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's gracious-ness in allowing interventions in his contribution. I regret the negative attitude that has been taken and on the basis of hearsay evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) related the experiences of councillors from Nottingham who visited Hereford. People who have visited Hereford and spoken to Herefordians—[HON. MEMBERS: "Herefordians?"] A select breed with white faces. They have been privileged to participate in the experiment from which much has been learnt and incorporated in the Bill. Nobody has said that the experiment was perfect. It was the test bed and many of the lessons that have been learnt have been included in the Bill.
11 pm
In amendment No. 159, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) addresses matters that have already been dealt with. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend accepts the amendment, but will he bear it in mind that the concept of the level of fares is itself an inflexibility in what could be flexible and competitive? Will the level of fares shown on the notice given with registration particulars be a maximum or a precise level? If it is a maximum, the operator can respond to competitive pressure by charging a little less and passengers will know that they will not be obliged to pay any more.
If it is the precise amount, however, inflexibility is introduced and a statutory period of notice must be given before and any change can be made. That might be advantageous when reducing fares, but when increasing them it might unnecessarily put an operator in financial difficulty. I want to ensure that we do not pin down operators with an inflexibility that we might regret. I should be most grateful if my right hon. Friend would comment on that. Having said that, I shall shut up.

Mr. Steen: I should like to repeat some of what I said in Committee, because amendment No. 159 has overtones of amendments which were proposed in Committee.

The difference between Conservative Members and the Opposition is that they distrust private operators. They think that private operators should be pinned down so that they are unable to make a go of things. The amendment provides that an operator must be as specific as possible to limit his scope of operation. He has to specify the size and type of his vehicle, for example. A member of the public could probably object to the traffic commissioner on the ground that an operator had to put in a replacement vehicle because his normal one was off the road. Even worse, the operator has to specify the proposed route.

Mr. Brando-Bravo: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Steen: No, because I am on an important point. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) may not know this, but on the fast bus to Heathrow airport from Victoria coach station — the hon. Gentleman has probably not taken this bus, but I am a keen bus rider and I travel on it quite often—the bus driver is given a discretion as to which way he goes to Heathrow. I have travelled on the bus a number of times, and it has gone three or four different ways to avoid traffic jams and to accommodate various passengers. The driver asks where one wishes to alight, and he will go that way to assist the passenger. That is an example of the kind of private enterprise operation that one expects to see. However, once one stipulates that the operator has to have particulars of the proposed route, he will not succeed in offering the flexibility, imagination and enterprise that I want to see.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that if in his constituency one of his constituents, who may live at some point along the route, wished to travel from Kingsbridge to Totnes, but did not know which way the bus was going to go, that would not inconvenience the constituent? It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should have chosen the example that he did because, of course, London is not deregulated. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is saying that we do not need deregulation in order to achieve flexibility. We simply need to tell the bus drivers on express coaches that they can go whichever way they like.

Mr. Steen: The hon. Lady always manages to twist any sensible point and turn it round to her advantage, but that is something for which she is well known.
If a passenger were travelling from Kingsbridge to Totnes—and the hon. Lady knows Totnes because she lived there for many years, and she is still referred to, although I will not say in what way, by various constituents — on a private enterprise bus which had nothing on the front, which is what the hon. Member for Wrexham was suggesting, the passenger would travel on that bus only once if it ended up at Ivybridge. Any commercial operator travelling from Kingsbridge to Totnes who took on board a passenger who asked for Totnes but ended up in Ivybridge would not be used by that passenger again. That is market forces, and that is what the hon. Lady does not understand. A person may be inconvenienced once, he may find himself in Ivybridge and not Totnes, but he would travel on that bus only once. Thereafter, he would make other arrangements.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend in his earlier remarks drew attention to the limitation that might be imposed on an operator if he had to specify the size and type of vehicle to be used, resulting in a rigidity in that


operator's performance. Would my hon. Friend accept that in our authority we have conventional double deckers, conventional single deckers and what we now call minibuses of 30 seats and less? It seems to me, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, that it is perfectly in order for an operator who has adequate vehicles of all types to make his own decision in the light of the circumstances as he sees them on which type of bus is appropriate, not only for a particular route, but for the time of day. It may be more appropriate to have the double decker at peak and the mini bus for the late night service.

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend, as always, makes interventions that are particularly pertinent and relevant. His intervention is far more appropriate than was that of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
This point is relevant not only to bus services but to airline services also. Airlines do not put on a jumbo jet with one person on board — unless it is the British Airways back-up to the shuttle service in order to make the maximum loss. In private enterprise bus services, one uses a small bus when there are a few people travelling and a big bus when there are a lot of people travelling. That is what private enterprise is all about. One does not waste money if one can avoid it.
The hon. Lady also said that one did not need to deregulate the bus service when I gave the example of the express bus. She gave a good example, but she does not understand that that express bus service to Heathrow is competing against the London Transport Al and A2 bus, and the underground. That is why the express bus has been made flexible. That is to attract other—

Mrs. Dunwoody: The London bus service is not part of the Bill.

Mr. Steen: The hon. Lady is right.

Dr. Marek: I do not object to what the Al, A2 and A3 buses do, but the hon. Gentleman must admit that it is a specialised service. All that the bus does on the way from the airport is drop people off, not pick them up. The buses have a predestined route because there are bus stops en route. I have no objection to that, but airport buses and similar operations are not comparable to local stage carriage services. Does the hon. Gentleman admit that?

Mr. Steen: I have been drawn off the point that I was making. Whenever the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich intervenes, one get drawn off the point. I want to get back to what the amendment is about. I should like to deal with what the hon. Member for Wrexham has just said. I think that he must be on autopilot this evening because he is saying the same thing over and over again. At least we know that we are safe with him.
The amendment refers to stopping places. Let me imagine the Kingsbridge to Totnes bus with no sign on the front, trundling along the country lanes of Devon, and a little lady standing there with her shopping basket—

Mr. Gregory: And an umbrella.

Mr. Steen: And an umbrella. The lady is standing by a lamp post waiting for the bus to stop, but she does not know where it will stop or where it will go. That cannot make sense. If one is running a private enterprise service, one will want customers. That is what private enterprise

and profit is about. One makes profits only if one has the passengers. but if nobody knows where the buses are going and where they stop, one does not get any passengers at all. When the amendment states that one should specify the stopping places, it is as if a private operator would wish to pass by all the potential passengers that he could take, to keep driving to an unspecified destination. The hon. Member for Wrexham cannot be serious in suggesting that that is what is required in the Bill.
The amendment goes on to say that there must be "terminal points". Of course there must be terminal points. The bus has to stop sometime. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it goes on and on, passing all the passengers, going past all the lamp posts, and all the bus stops? What is supposed to happen if the amendment is passed?
The amendment also refers to a timetable. Not only is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the bus has no destination on the front, that it keeps going past the bus stops and the lamp posts. and goes round and round non-stop, but nobody should know when it is travelling. Is he suggesting that that is why the amendment is needed? Clearly it is nonsense. The amendment also says that there should be a "level of fares". That cannot apply because the bus would not have any people on it because nobody would know where it was going and where it stopped. Therefore, one would not need to know the level of fares because nobody would be paying anything.
Therefore, the amendment is clearly completely inappropriate. It is not needed because no private enterprise operator could run a service without explaining the very things that the amendment is designed to do. I, and I am sure, my hon. Friends, believe that it is complete poppycock. It is Alice in Wonderland. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is now laughing with her hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) because she realises what a ridiculous amendment it is. It adds nothing to the Bill. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wrexham has associated himself with it, because it does not do him the credit that we have come to expect after listening to him for 150 hours in Committee.

Mr. Ridley: We have had a most amusing debate on amendment No. 159. I feel much like the man on the bus in Cambridgeshire, to whom my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred. I feel as if I have been sitting on a hard leather seat, as I often do when I listen to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who takes one rather slowly through the countryside, stopping at every available bus stop and not hastening to his destination.
If I were to pontificate about the bus services in Wrexham as freely as the hon. Gentleman does about those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), it might rouse the hon. Gentleman to a higher level of activity and a higher tempo. The way in which he freely tells the House what is happening in Hereford—when he later admits that he has not been there for a year and never on a bus, but has read some Labour party propaganda that tells him that the whole thing is rather a bad egg, without the faintest apology to my hon. Friend who lives there, holds surgeries there, receives letters from his constituents and knows what is happening in Hereford with a degree of detail and technical knowledge—makes him look like a man from the moon.
We have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman about Hereford, and not enough from my hon. Friend who knows the position there. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would stop that nonsense. Tomorrow I shall take pleasure in telling him what I think about the bus service in Wrexham on whatever amendment he likes. Although I have never been to Wrexham, or on a bus there, and know nothing about it, I am as willing as he is to pontificate.

Mr. David Marshall: Will the Secretary of State tell the House when he has been on a bus?

Mr. Ridley: I have been on a bus, but I confess with great candour never in Wrexham. However, that will not stop me from emulating the hon. Gentleman and commenting at great length on the nature of bus services in Wrexham, although I have never been there, or in a bus.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The right hon. Gentleman has never been on a bus.

Mr. Ridley: In Wrexham.
Many requirements are needed to register services. There are two points of difference between the two sides of the House. The first is whether the requirements of what must be registered should be in the statute, or whether they should be spelt out in regulations under the statute. The hon. Lady would like them spelt out in the statute, whereas the Government think that it might be more sensible and flexible to spell them out in regulations.
The second difference between the two sides relates to the details that it is necessary to register when an operator registers a service with a traffic commissioner. We do not differ much about what should be the details of registration and, on reflection, the hon. Lady may agree that it is better to have some flexibility. Regarding the details of what should be registered, we shall gain experience of what is and is not necessary to be registered, what could be inimical to commercial confidentiality if it were registered, and what should be changed from time to time. There is not much difference between us about the substance.
The Government's policy of seeking to make regulations which set out the things which should be registered may be more flexible than the hon. Lady's more rigid policy of spelling them out in the statute.
What details should be registered? The hon. Lady's amendment specifies the size and type of vehicle, the proposed route, the stopping places, the terminal points and the fares. The purpose of registration is to inform local authorities which services will run in their areas in terms of geography—where they will run—and in terms of time and frequency—when they will run. That is the essential information that must be known before a local authority can augment bus services by going out to tender for some routes.
It is not entirely obvious that the size and type of vehicle should be registered, because a competitor, having discovered that someone had registered a large vehicle, might decide to register to run a smaller vehicle because he believed that there was less trade. Furthermore, he could then hold the first operator to the condition that he run a larger vehicle, because that was the vehicle that he registered. Therefore, the first operator might lose the flexibility to change to a smaller vehicle if he discovered that the trade would support only a vehicle smaller than

the one he registered. We should not be too firm about this. We are happy to consult the industry and the local authorities to try to determine exactly what to specify in the regulations as to size and type of vehicle.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) was right to say that it is unnecessary to be specific about the proposed route. However, it is necessary to he specific about where the route starts and ends. If wished to go from Kingsbridge to Totnes, I should be extremely keen to arrive in Totnes. I would not mind which route the bus took. A service which was radio-controlled might hear that there were some people in a village off the main route who wished to be picked up. Therefore, the bus would go off the main route and pick up the four or five people there, because the driver would know that they wished to go to Totnes. Should it be a breach of registration if the operator shows the flexibility that is in the interests of the passengers?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, always. Perhaps not always, but I will give way now.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am deeply grateful to the Secretary of State for this newly found — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am deeply grateful for the great courtesy that he always displays. I am not clear whether he is seriously telling the House that he cannot envisage the necessity for people who live along the route between two small towns to know the route that the bus will take. We could be talking about anywhere in South Hams, where there are even fewer people, more lanes and higher hedges, but in this case we are talking about two towns. Is he saying that, if it suited another group of passengers. the bus could be diverted here, there and everywhere? Does he seriously imagine that no one will get off the bus in between the two towns about which we are talking?

Mr. Ridley: I feared that the hon. Lady did not understand the amendment, but I was sufficiently courteous and generous not to accuse her of that. But it is now clear that I should have done so, because she does not understand the amendment.
We are not talking about the information given to passengers in timetables or fare tables, which can be posted anywhere. We are talking about the service that must be registered with the traffic commissioners. My point is that an operator who registers the service, and then decides that it would be better to take a different route, advertises it in his timetable and gets customers interested, would be accused of breaking the registration conditions simply because he had not registered the alternative route. They are two different things. One is what the operator says to his passengers and the other is what he registers.

Mr. Fry: Earlier in his reply my right hon. Friend said that information had to be registered to enable a local authority to see where it would need to augment the service. If the route is not predetermined, how on earth can the local authority decide whether that service needs to be augmented? In my constituency, there might be a bus service from Wellingborough to Kettering but if the people in Little Harrowden, for example, did not know whether the service was to go through the village, they would not know what to expect. There might be a supplementary service from Little Harrowden to serve either Kettering or


Wellingborough, or there might be a bus service through it. Surely it is important for the local authority to know, so that it may decide whether it needs to augment that service.

Mr. Ridley: I do not dissent from what my hon. Friend says, but there is a balance between saying that the slightest alteration in the route registered to be run by an operator 42 days before he starts will involve him in a possible breach of the registration, and the other side of the argument, which is that of course the local authority has to have a very clear idea of where routes will be. To achieve a balance between those two laudable objectives, all I am asking for is a certain flexibility after consultation in drawing up the regulations, rather than having the matter specified in statute.

Mr. Steen: I can speak only of my own constituency. I am advised that over the years bus services have declined. Instead of having regular bus services between Totnes and Kingsbridge, there are fewer and fewer buses. Surely my right hon. Friend would agree that all rural constituents want more buses. If there are new services because of the Bill and because private enterprise produces more buses, people will be delighted, even if the buses deviate a little from the proposed route. Surely the purpose of the Bill is to increase the number of buses and to create more services between rural towns and villages. That is what people want and should get.

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my right hon. Friend. On Second Reading, when we were discussing buses and taxis, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) intervened to describe the two as totally separate. She said that buses were for the poor and taxis were for the rich, and she wanted to know why I was worried about taxis. When one thinks about it, there is not all that much difference between a bus and a taxi.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Just the price.

Mr. Ridley: No. Again, I do not think the hon. Lady is up to date. I think she will find that shared taxis under the Bill will be cheaper for the individual than many municipal bus services. When we consider the small number of people in hamlets in South Hams and other such places who do not have cars, we find that it is almost a taxi service that is required in many cases. Therefore, we should not be too disparaging about taxis.
In regard to the list of items in the amendment, terminal points are vital. Stopping places are important, but we want a little flexibility about where they are to be. Again the timetable is important, but we do not want to make it so rigid that half a minute's deviation could amount to a breach of registration.
In regard to the level of fares, there is an exception in my agreement. I am not convinced that fares need to be registered and that the failure to charge the precise fares in the registration should render an operator liable for sanctions against his operator's licence. I agree that many local authorities, and especially those that run concessionary fares schemes, may need to have details of the fares charged, but if they do, they can obtain them as part of the concessionary fares arrangements themselves. I do not want to make registration more of a burden than it need

be, and experience of fares notification under the present licensing system suggests that the information is not, in practice, used. I am not convinced on the point of fares.
The difference between the two sides is small. The question is whether it should be done through statute or regulation. Regulation is more flexible and takes account of the points that have been made by hon. Members, and I hope that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich will not press her amendment to a Division.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 5, line 20 at end insert—

'(3A) In subsection (2) above "the period of notice", in relation to any registration, means, subject to regulations under this section—

(a) the period prescribed for the purposes of this subsection; or
(b) if longer, the period beginning with the registration and ending with the date given to the traffic commissioner by the operator as the date on which the service will begin.'

No. 11, in page 5, line 29, leave out from 'particulars' to end of line 34 and insert 'are registered under this section'.

No. 12, in page 5, line 37, leave out from 'section' to `the', in line 38.

No. 13, in page 5, line 39, leave out from 'shall' to first `the' in line 42 and insert

'become effective—

' (a) on the expiry of the period beginning with the date on which the traffic commissioner is notified of the variation or, as the case may be, cancellation and ending with the date determined in accordance with regulations under this section; or
(b) if later, on'.

No. 14, in page 5, line 42, after 'given', insert 'to the traffic commissioner'.

No. 15, in page 5, line 43, leave out 'commencement'.

No. 16, in page 5, line 44, leave out 'discontinuance of the service' and insert 'cancellation'.

No. 17, in page 6, line 7, after 'subsection', insert `(3A) or'.

No. 18, in page 6, line 10, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

(c) that in such cases or classes of case as may be prescribed—

(i) subsection (2) above shall have effect as if for the reference in paragraph (aa) to the period of notice there were substituted a reference to such period as the traffic commissioner may determine;
(ii) subsection (6) above shall have effect as if for the reference in paragraph (a) to the date on which the period mentioned in that paragraph is to expire there were substituted a reference to such date as he may determine;'. — [Mr. Ridley.]

Mr. Craigen: I beg to move, amendment No. 177, in page 7, line 12, leave out 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 178, in page 7, line 13, at end insert
';and (d) any Passenger Transport Executive.'.

Mr. Craigen: In the inimitable words of Ministers, this is a drafting amendment. We think that as the PTEs are


to be responsible for the tendering arrangements, they should be notified, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree.

Mr. Ridley: Yes, I agree. However, the amendment is not well drafted. I accept the principle of it and will table an amendment in the other place to meet the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Craigen: I thank the Secretary of State, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 7

APPLICATION OF TRAFFIC REGULATION CONDITIONS TO LOCAL SERVICES SUBJECT TO REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 6

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 7, line 14, leave out
'at the request of any traffic authority' and insert
'If a traffic authority asks him to exercise his powers under this section in relation to a particular traffic problem'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 22, 29 to 32 and 44 to 46.

Mr. Mitchell: I hope that the House will welcome these amendments, which have been tabled in the light of the lengthy Committee discussions on the traffic regulation provisions of the Bill. I would draw attention particularly to the specific mention now made of road users— which I can assure hon. Members includes the important group of pedestrians—and of the interests of elderly persons and disabled persons. I would point out that this provision is not confined to the interests of elderly and disabled passengers.
The amendments in this group also give new rights to traffic authorities—that is, county councils in England and Wales and regional or islands covered in Scotland — other than the one which requested a traffic regulation condition. Such authorities may of course be very much affected by a condition restricting the use of a road in a neighbouring county which diverts buses across the border. Such an authority affected may, under the amendments, get the traffic commissioner to hold an inquiry at which it can make representations.
The remaining amendments are consequential or for clarification. One, for example, puts it beyond a peradventure that the traffic commissioner has discretion to impose different conditions from those originally requested by the traffic authority, although directed to the same problem. Accordingly, I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Wareing: Although I do not believe that Government amendment No. 22 should be opposed, serious reservations ought to be expressed about the Government's failure to do far more to meet the needs of the elderly and the disabled. They are treated as an afterthought. No matter what the Government may say in support of their amendment, the disabled not only should be safeguarded from danger on routes and at predetermined stopping places but should be consulted about their overall needs before routes and stopping places are deternined. The amendment is totally inadequate

because it fails to meet the needs of the disabled. Competition means that the needs of the disabled will, all too often, be ignored.
During the proceedings in 1984 on the London Regional Transport Bill the Government decided that a separate clause should be included to protect the needs of the disabled in London. I see no reason why the disabled on Merseyside, in Tyne and Wear or in any other part of the country should not be treated in the same way as the disabled in London. The disabled do not expect facilities for wheelchairs to be made available on the buses, but they expect the needs of partially disabled people to be taken into account. The opportunity should not be missed not only to ensure that the disabled are catered for on existing routes but to provide a code of practice which will make appropriate provision for those who are partially disabled.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am sure that all hon. Members were hoping that, just for once, a little graciousness would be shown by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who pressed in Committee the cause of the elderly and the disabled. But when something is done there is not one word of congratulation. The Government have paid regard in particular to the needs of the elderly and the disabled. At this late hour there ought, surely, to be one word of enouragement from the hon. Member for West Derby.

Mr. Wareing: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member. This amendment refers only to the routes and stopping places of registered services. There should be a similar provision covering the rest of the country as the Government were pressed, even by their own back-benchers, to provide for London. I am not referring to a minority of the population but to an estimated 10 per cent. —5· million—of the population, many of whom are disabled or partially disabled. A considerable number of others—for example, people carrying heavy shopping bags and mothers with young children—have difficulty in getting on and off buses.
In terms of easy access, I understand that ordinary buses cater for 74 per cent. of the population. However, using the provisions of the London Regional Transport Act, a double-decker bus is being designed to which 90 per cent. of disabled and partially mobile people will be able to gain access. In other words, London is being dealt with differently from the rest of the country. The Minister should announce his intention to add a provision in another place to improve the Bill because the amendment will not adequately provide for the needs of the disabled.

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman referred to his remarks being directed to non-registered services. What did he have in mind?

Mr. Wareing: The amendment is not concerned with all services. During the passage of what is now the London Regional Transport Act, the Government inserted an amendment which covered all services.
The disabled people's organisations regard this part of the Bill as completely inadequate, and if they have not written to the Minister telling him that, they have certainly written to me. More is required than the amendment permits. The disabled are being threatened with apartheid, as it were, in that they will not be able to enjoy the facilities which the rest of the community enjoy.
No matter what the Minister says, the amendment does not deal with all their problems; it deals only with routes


which are predetermined. Indeed, the disabled are included only as an afterthought. May we be assured that all services will be covered? The trouble is that there has not been consultation with the bodies representing the disabled. Because of that, the Bill does not cover their needs.

Mr. Steen: The Under-Secretary has been rather silent about the needs of cyclists. Under this part of the Bill, does he expect the commissioner to have regard to those needs?

Mr. Dixon: Hear, hear.

Mr. Steen: I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) even on the question of cycling. Any comments by the Minister at this late hour on that point would be well received by the 90,000 commuter cyclists who come into London daily.

Mr. Gregory: I should like to develop the arguments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) who, sadly, was not heard with sympathy by the House. Government amendment No. 22 does little to make adequate provision for the elderly or disabled. Under the provisions of the amendment, their interest will be taken into account with regard to the routes and stopping places of registrable services. They will be accounted for only if the traffic commissioner is satisfied that the laying down of traffic regulation conditions is necessary, first, to prevent damage to road users, and, secondly, to reduce severe traffic congestion. Any reference to the interests of disabled and elderly persons will take place at a late stage and in a restricted manner. It will not affect the provision of transport in the first place, nor will it ensure that the needs of the elderly and disabled are taken into account as a matter of course.
It is important to distinguish between facilities that provide access for wheelchair users and those that provide access for people who are partially mobile. It is not realistic for every mainstream transport service to be fitted for the former—I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) in his usual lucid way — but it is realistic for the mainstream transport services to provide facilities to accommodate the latter. I am principally concerned with the latter in relation to this amendment.
As the hon. Member for West Derby revealed, a considerable proportion of the population-10 per cent. — is disabled in one way or another. I am therefore seeking improvements that will be of direct benefit to 5· million people. It is estimated that between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of people who need to use public passenger transport require the additional facilities making access easier for people who are partially handicapped. The vast majority of elderly people are assisted by improved facilities, but so are people with heavy shopping and mothers with young children and pushchairs. We should not see that group in isolation.
London Regional Transport has recently launched a new design for a double-decker bus, aimed at meeting the needs of disabled people, except wheelchair users. One feature which I have seen is split-front entrances which make the bus accessible to 95 per cent. of the population, compared with 74 per cent. for current vehicles.
I am anxious that provision for people who are partially mobile is not seen as a matter to be dealt with exclusively by the social services. It could become too easy for operators to see disabled and elderly people as the responsibility of local authority services. Facilities can and should be provided on mainstream transport at little cost. Furthermore, such a provision would substantially reduce the number and availability of vehicles open to disabled people. This focus would promote a policy of segregation and not integration. It is not cost-effective to provide separate services for people whose disabilities can be accommodated on mainstream transport services.
A further valid argument for improving transport access is that, in the long run, it can bring financial benefit to the health and social services. It is well documented that people who are house bound, either through age or disability, suffer from depression and other ill-effects. Consequently, they require more medical attention than they might if they were able to lead an independent and more active life. Welfare services need to be taken to people who are house bound. If those people could go to the services themselves the burden on those facilities would be reduced.
A considerable amount has been done by successive Governments to widen opportunities for disabled people. However, full advantage cannot be taken of those opportunities unless disabled people are able to get to them. In recent years various technological advances have been made which could be of great benefit to disabled people wishing to use public transport. It is vital, therefore, to ensure that there is some mechanism whereby operators are made aware, first, of the need to ensure that their buses are accessible and, secondly, of the improvements that can be made to increase accessibility.
In conclusion, this is still a far cry from the general provision for the needs of disabled people to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland referred in his undertaking in Committee on 23 April. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has been busy since then, but I hope that the Government will take note of the spirit of what has been said by hon. Members on both sides today. The assurances have not been forthcoming in time for the Report stage. I trust that the Government in their inestimable wisdom will provide those assurances in the other place.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I wish to support briefly but very warmly the views expressed by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory). I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) expressed the views of all who sat through the Committee stage. Time and again amendments about the needs of the disabled were moved and time and again we were told that the Government were sympathetic and that they would consider the points and come forward with proposals either on Report or in another place.
The amendment is simply not good enough. We need more consideration for the disabled long before the point to which the Government's amendment relates. I hope that the Minister will give one simple undertaking today—that if the necessary provisions are not introduced on Report they will be introduced in another place. I believe that hon. Members on both sides would be prepared to accept that undertaking.

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) seemed to be under some


misapprehension as to the scope of the Government amendment. I remind him that all stage fare services outside London have to be registered, so the scope of the amendment is considerably wider than his speech implied. I am glad that he did not seek to oppose the amendment.
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) about the importance of the elderly and the disabled, who number some 5· million and constitute a very large part of the market. That figure, of course, includes a huge range of people, from the severely disabled who require special chairs and therefore special transport to people with arthritis and the many elderly people who have difficulty walking very far and negotiating steps but who would certainly not refer to themselves as invalids and would indeed take offence if anyone sought so to categorise them.
The elderly form the largest single group of bus users in this country-followed by the lower paid travelling to and from work and students-and no operator will fail to appreciate the importance of that large section of the market. I assure the hon. Member for West Derby and my hon. Friend the Member for York that the Department maintains a very close working relationship with representatives of the disabled and we shall be consulting those representatives about the review of the construction and use regulations to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred.

Mrs. Dunwoody: That is for the future. We want an undertaking from the Minister that he will do something now, before the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has mentioned the form in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the changes that he proposed to introduce. I have nothing to add to that, save to say that what my right hon. Friend said stands. He said that something would be done either here or in another place. This stage is not yet completed. The hon. Lady will have to wait, but she can be assured that we shall not renege on any undertakings that have been given.
The hon. Member for West Derby said that the disabled were being threatened with a form of apartheid and that the Bill does not deal with all of the disableds' problems. Of course it does not. No one ever suggested that it would. However, we are doing more for the disabled in the Bill than has been done in the past. It is a useful step forward and one which will be widely welcomed.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) talked about cyclists' needs. The amendment refers to road users and apart from the places where there are separate cycle tracks, cyclists are road users. Therefore, my hon. Friend need have no qualms on that score.
I have much sympathy with the aims of my hon. Friend the Member for York. I recognise his deep concern for the disabled. The amendment deals only with traffic regulations and conditions and it is not the place in our consideration of the Bill that my hon. Friend can expect to find the reassurance that he is seeking on the broader front to which he referred, with which, as he knows, I have much sympathy. I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

APPLICATION OF TRAFFIC REGULATION CONDITIONS TO LOCAL SERVICES SUBJECT TO REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 6

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 7, line 14, clause 7, leave out 'at the request of any traffic authority' and insert

'If a traffic authority asks him to exercise his powers under this section in relation to a particular traffic problem'

No. 20, in line 16, after 'provision', insert 'of services'.

No. 21, in line 17, leave out from 'apply' to end of line 19 and insert—
'(lA) In this section -service" has the same meaning as in section 6 of this Act.'.

No. 22, in line 24, leave out from 'considering' to end of line 33 and insert
'the traffic in the area in question, that such conditions are required in order to—

(a) prevent danger to road users; or
(b) reduce severe traffic congestion.

(3A) In considering what traffic regulation conditions to apply to a particular area a traffic commissioner shall have egard in particular to the interests of—

(a) those who have registered under section 6 of this Act services which are or will be operated in the area;
(b) those who are, or are likely to be, users of such services; and
(c) persons who are elderly or disabled.'

No. 23, in line 36, leave out 'registrable'.

No. 24, in line 37, leave out 'such'.

No. 25, in line 38, leave out 'such'.

No. 26, in page 8, line 3, leave out 'registrable'.

No. 27, in line 5, leave out 'registrable'.

No. 28, in line 12, leave out 'registrable'.

No. 29, in line 19, leave out from 'from' to 'or' in line 21 and insert—

'(i) the traffic authority which made the request under subsection (1) above;
(ii) any other traffic authority likely to be affected by traffic regulation conditions determined in response to that request; or
(iii) any person who has registered under section 6 of this Act a service which is or will be operated in the area in question;'.

No. 30, in line 27, leave out from 'if' to end of line 28 and insert
'and person mentioned in subsection (8) (a) above'.

No. 31, in line 32, leave out from `to' to first `a. in line 33, and insert
'exercise his powers under this section in relation to'.

No. 32, in line 35, leave out 'the conditions in question' and insert
'any conditions determined by the traffic commissioner in response to the request'.

No. 33, in line 44, leave out local'.— [Mr. David Mitchell.]

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 9, line 9, leave out 'regional or islands council' and insert
'council of any region or islands area which lies wholly or in pan within that area'.
The amendment brings the definition of "traffic authority" in Scotland into line with that in England and Wales. There is only one Scottish traffic area, which has several regional and island councils in it. The Bill might be read as implying that there are several traffic areas but only one council in each. The amendment will avoid any such reading.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC REGULATION CONDITIONS

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 9, line 13, leave out 'PSV operator's licence' and insert 'licence or permit'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following amendments: No. 36, in page 9, line 14, at end insert
'or, as the case may be, to that permit.'.

No. 39, in line 21, leave out TSV operator's licence' and insert `licence or permit'.

No. 41, in line 27, leave out `PSV operator's licence' and insert 'licence or permit'.

No. 59, in page 20, line 27, clause 21, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Ancram: When a traffic commissioner has determined traffic regulation conditions they are attached to the PSV operator's licence. That applies to any operator who has registered a local service that is affected by the conditions. Holders of community bus permits can also register local services. Under the amendments, traffic regulation conditions will be attached to a permit in the same way as they are to an operator's licence.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to the Minister. I take it that the amendment follows the discussion that took place in Committee on this issue.

Mr. Ancram: Indeed.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 9, line 14, at end insert
'or, as the case may be, to that permit.'.

No. 38, in line 15, leave out from beginning to 'is' in line 17 and insert—
'(2) In this section
"licence" means a PSV operator's licence;
"permit" means a permit under section 20 of this Act; and a licence or permit is relevant for the purposes of this section if a local service registered under section 6 of this Act by the holder of the licence or permit'.

No. 39, in line 21, leave out `PSV operator's licence' and insert 'licence or permit'.

No. 40, in line 25 after third 'the', insert 'particulars of the'.

No. 41, in line 27, leave out 'PSV operator's licence' and insert 'licence or permit'.— [Mr. David Mitchell.]

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 9, line 36, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
'(6) Where the operator of a local service is unable both to operate the service in accordance with the particulars of the service registered under section 6 of this Act and to comply with—

(a) traffic regulation conditions; or
(b) any other provision of a kind mentioned in subsection (5) above;

any failure to operate the service in accordance with those particulars which occurs at any time before the expiry of the prescribed period beginning with the coming into force of the conditions or provision shall be disregarded to the extent to which it is attributable to his having to comply with the conditions or provision.'.

Subsection (6), as drafted, dispenses an operator from the requirement to run as registered if he is prevented from

doing so by traffic regulation conditions. The amendment widens the dispensation to cover prevention by provisions under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 or, for instance, a similar local Act. It also narrows the dispensation by limiting it in time. I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

APPEALS AGAINST TRAFFIC REGULATION CONDITIONS

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 10, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (ii) and insert—
'(ii) any traffic authority aggrieved by the decision in question; and'.

No. 45, in page 10, line 33, after 'right', insert—
'(bb) any traffic authority aggrieved by the decision;'.

No. 46, in page 11, line 5, at end insert—
'(10) In this section "traffic authority" has the same meaning as in section 7 of this Act'.— [Mr. Ridley.]

It being Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [1 April] and the resolution [21 May], to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government to the end of part II of the Bill.

Clause 10

IMMEDIATE HIRING OF TAXIS AT SEPARATE FARES

Amendments made:

No. 47, in page 11, line 7, leave out from 'In' to 'for' in line 9 and insert
'the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1A) below, a licensed taxi may be hired'.

No. 48, in page 11, line 16, at end insert—

'(lA) The circumstances are that—

(a) the taxi is hired in an area where a scheme made under this section is in operation;
(b) the taxi is licensed by the licensing authority for that area; and
(c) the hiring falls within the terms of the scheme.'

No. 49, in page 11, line 17, leave out 'the appropriate'.

No. 50, in page 11, line 25, leave out from first 'in' to the end and insert
'that area.
(2A) For the purposes of this section, a licensing authority may make a scheme for their area and shall make such a scheme if the holders of at least ten per cent. of the taxi licences issued by the authority request the authority in writing to do so.

(2B) Any scheme made under this section shall—

(a) designate the places in the area from which taxis may be hired under the scheme ("authorised places");
(b) specify the requirements to be met for the purposes of the scheme in relation to the hiring of taxis at separate fares; and
(c) if made otherwise than by the Secretary of State—

(i) include such provision, or provision of such description, as may be prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph;
(ii) not include provision of any such description as may be prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.'.

No. 51, in page 11, line 26, leave out from 'Any', to `may' in line 27 and insert
'scheme made under this section'.

No. 52, in page 11, line 36, leave out 'so hired' and insert
'on any such hiring.
(3A) A licensing authority may, subject to subsection (2B) above, vary any scheme made by them under this section.

(3B) Any scheme under this section, other than one made by the Secretary of State, and any variation of such a scheme shall be made in accordance with the prescribed procedure.'.

No. 53, in page 11, line 38, leave out subsection (4).

No. 54, in page 12, line 3, after 'section', insert—

' (a) the hiring of a taxi falls within the terms of a scheme if—

(i) it is hired from an authorised place; and

(ii) the hiring meets the requirements specified by the licensing authority as those to be met for the purposes of the scheme; and
(b) '

No. 55, in page 12, line 6, leave out 'determinations' and insert 'a scheme'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Clause 13

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTIONS I0 TO 12

Amendments made: No. 56, in page 14, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 14.

No. 57, in page 15, line 7, leave out 'local'.— [Mr. Ridley.]

Clause 21

FURTHER PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO COMMUNITY BUS PERMITS

Amendment made: No. 59, in page 20, line 27, leave out subsection (4).— [Mr. Ridley.]

Clause 23

CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO PSV OPERATOR'S LICENCE

Amendment made: No. 60, in page 22, line 7, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

' (a) the operator has failed to operate a local service registered under section 6 of this Act; or
(b) the operator has operated a local service in contravention of that section; or'.— [Mr. Ridley.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

PETITIONS

Transport Bill

12 midnight

Mr. Peter Pike: I should like to present three petitions concerning the Transport Bill, which we have been discussing today.
The first has been signed by 2,786 people of north-east Lancashire who use the Burnley and Pendle, Ribble and other transport undertakings. The petition concludes that the petitioners:
pray that your Honourable House do urge the Secretary of State for Transport to withdraw the Bill immediately.
The second petition is from the Burnley and Pendle Joint Transport Committee and is signed by its clerk, Brian Whittle. It runs transport services in Burnley and Pendle and has an agency agreement with all of the other transport undertakings that operate transport in the area. The petition concludes:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement the proposals of the White Paper on buses and the Transport Bill.
The third petition is signed and sealed by the chief executive of Lancashire county council and concludes:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement the proposals of the White Paper on buses and the Transport Bill.
Those petitions show the strong feelings of the people of north-east Lancashire and Burnley and their belief that the Bill will mean the end of passenger transport in the area.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I also would like to present a petition concerning the Transport Bill which the House has considered today. I present it on behalf of the South Advisory Committee for Public Passenger Transport in Greater Manchester—an organisation that represents many local groups. The petition is signed by members of the committee, all of whom have massive expertise in public transport. The petitioners:
pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement proposals of the White Paper on buses.
I should like to put on record my firm support for the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Live Animals (Export)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Michael Hancock: I feel that I should be speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box as this is a matter that both major parties have refused to take seriously and to deal with properly. They have been sadly reluctant to get to grips with it and to introduce legislation to solve what many people consider to be a barbaric and inhumane way of treating animals.
I should like to pay tribute to those who have been involved with me in a campaign to ban the export of live animals for further fattening and slaughter—Mrs. Hilda Homes, Mrs. Kay Reid, Mrs. Eillen Bazeet and Mrs. Hunter. They have all worked tirelessly in the past decade on behalf of the animal rights movement to motivate people to support their campaign and that of countless thousands of others who want the Government to act as they suggest.
The history of my involvement in the city of Portsmouth goes back five years when the city council of Portsmouth instigated a Portsmouth City Council Bill to ban the export through its own ferry port of animals for slaughter and further fattening. That got as far as Second Reading when Mr. Speaker intervened and ruled it out of order, and the Bill failed. It was a great disappointment to the thousands of people at that time and, indeed, to the ratepayers of Portsmouth as a whole who put aside about £30,000 to finance the passage of the Bill. There was no blowing in the wind—as it came from Portsmouth, it was very much a real commitment to ensuring that something was done. There was bitter disappointment that the Bill did not succeed in its passage through Parliament and become law.
We come then to what the Government's attitude has been. At that time, the then Secretary of State and, indeed, junior Ministers in his Department, said that there was insufficient and inconclusive evidence that cruelty had taken place or that anything was wrong with the law. I am glad to say that that can no longer be said to be the case.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in the recent document which it submitted to the EEC Commission for it to evaluate and act upon, gives ample evidence to support two points. First, as the RSPCA says, it has never tried to prove cruelty, and the Government have tried to hide behind that. The document proves conclusively that there is something wrong with the existing legislation, and that United Kingdom laws do not take account of EEC regulations. They do not cover the export and transportation of poultry, rabbits and, in some instances, dogs, and they do not give sufficient cover for those animals such as pigs and calves which are transported abroad from this country.
There is evidence now that the trading of these vehicles on the continent leads to great abuse and to much cruelty. In my own city, I have witnessed a lorry transporting animals which has lost a two-week-old calf out of the top tier when it has gone round a bend off the motorway at great speed. These animals, when they have come out of the truck, have had to be humanely destroyed at the roadside in the city of Portsmouth. This is a disgrace to any society. We should all be ashamed of these occurrences. That was not a one-off event by any means.
I have correspondence from people who have travelled on ferries from this country to the continent. They all express concern about the way in which animals have been treated during the various journeys that they have undertaken. A Mrs. Deadman of Burgess Hill in Sussex wrote that her distress was such that she could never again experience a Channel crossing from a ferry port if she thought that animals might be travelling in the same boat. She said:
The distressed nature of the animals was something that had to be seen to be believed.
I have another letter from a Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds of Hull:
My husband and I recently returned from our holiday in northern Brittany. It was a most enjoyable trip, but was marred by the sight of what greeted us on our way out of Britain at the ferry port in Portsmouth — lorry-loads of young calves crammed tightly into huge two or even three tiered transporters waiting to be loaded on to the ferry. Many of these calves were clearly distressed, some of them climbing on top of others trying to eat the dirty straw that was hanging down from the floor level above. Others were straining to poke their noses through the bars, trying to catch the droplets of rain that were falling outside the wagon on to their tongues. Is this sort of scene really necessary? Are we not, after all, supposed to be a civilised nation?
So the letter continues. There are hundreds of other letters from people similarly affected by what is a disgrace to this country. None of us should be proud of that.
For present statistics of the numbers of animals exported, again I quote the experience that I know best, in my city. About 42,000 calves were transported from the ferry port last year alone. Many other animals have passed through, many in bizarre situations, to say the least. The way in which some of the animals are transported leaves much to be desired.
I do not know whether the Minister is aware that at present lorries come over from France empty, and tout their services round the country, picking up animals from market town to market town. After they get a full load, they return to France. Some of the animals will have been on the vehicles for the best part of a week. That is not an uncommon occurrence for poultry. The Minister might shake her head, but I am sure that if she were to speak to senior officers in the RSPCA they would readily clarify the matter for her. It is a regular occurrence. The same can be said of rabbits.
Those who want the campaign to come to fruition want a total ban on the export of those animals. I should like to see the trade stopped once and for all. I should like to see the Government take a stand against the EEC. I do not want to hear the argument that we cannot opt out, in a form of UDI. Of course we can. If something so opposed to our nature as cruelty to animals to this extent is going on, of course we have a every right as a nation to act.
The facts about the expense speak for themselves. It is not easy for people who would like to see the trade persist to argue that it is cheaper to export the animals from here alive only to see them further fattened and ultimately slaughtered. There is now substantial evidence that people in this country can rear animals for the veal trade, have them slaughtered here and subsequently transported to the continent, and make substantial profits. There is no legitimate argument on expense. We should not have to try to hide behind such an argument when we know that something is so blatantly wrong. It is not a legitimate point for any Government of any party to suggest that they want to see scenes such as the ones depicted in the recent RSPCA booklet, in which one sees animals straining their


heads, when they have been restrained by bars to prevent physical movement. It is a disgrace to all of us. We should all want something to be done about it.
The Portsmouth City Council Bill was supported by a majority of the city council. I hasten to add that it was a Conservative-controlled city council, which was enlight-ened enough to see that there was so much public clamour for action to be taken that it responded magnificently by promoting the Bill. It was the council's intention to ban the trade once and for all because it felt that the citizens of Portsmouth did not want it. I believe that the majority of people in the country do not want the trade to continue.
On 3 December last year, I was present with a group of petitioners from south Hampshire who presented over 30,000 signatures to the Prime Minister at Downing street, urging her to step in and take action on their behalf. If we were to poll in other parts of the country, I do not believe that the response would be any different. There is massive and overwhelming support for the view that something needs to be done. What do we get? We get answers such as one recently given to me by the Minister concerning what the Government intend to do about legislation:
We have no plans to introduce further implementing legislation. I consider that our current legislation fulfils our obligations under these directives, and so protects the welfare of animals in international transit within our jurisdiction.
It is no good to suggest that one can opt out just because the animals have left this country. In the main, they are travelling in British vehicles, with British drivers, and have emanated from British farms and British markets. To suggest that it does not matter what happens when they get off at the other side is sticking one's head in the sand and pretending that nothing is wrong. It is disgraceful for anybody to suggest that it is all right that that should persist. I urge the Minister to take the first steps of many that will lead me to believe that there will be a more enlightened and humane attitude towards the welfare of animals.
I hope that the obvious evidence makes it impossible for the Government to neglect their responsibilities. I plead with them not to argue against the case of the RSPCA, which is conclusive and has been corroborated by people who have followed similar trails to those of the RSPCA and members of the media who have been sufficiently enlightened to show the British public what is happening. Those letters and the response from those who travelled on the ferries are but the pinnacle of the pyramid of disgust that we allow this trade to persist.
I plead with the Government not to suggest that adequate legislation is available outside the United Kingdom to ensure that animals are properly catered for. Those of us who care and have looked into the matter know that that is not true, but is nonsense. We know that animals are not watered or fed at the appropriate times, and that they travel great distances on the Continent when they leave the ships at the ports of entry. We have it in our power to do something. If we do not, it simply means that we are prepared to allow animals to continue to suffer, and that the good name of this country will be dragged down. It also means that we are prepared to ignore the consistent clamour for positive steps to be taken to eradicate the trade.
It is no good suggesting that all those involved in animal rights are middle-class do-gooders, animal lovers and vegetarians. No one is suggesting that animals should not be used to feed people who choose to eat meat, or that

we have a bigoted outlook towards others' actions, life style and feeding habits. We merely seek to point out that there is sufficient evidence and enough going for us as a nation who care about animal welfare to start taking positive steps to introduce legislation which will tighten existing rules and abide by the directives laid down.
I hope that the Government will have sufficient courage to say that they are not prepared to let the trade continue. By the end of the Parliament, I hope that the Government will have been courageous and responsive enough to take action and place proposals before the House, which will permanently outlaw from our shores the exportation and transportation of live animals for further fattening and, ultimately, for slaughter. Only then will they be seen to respond to our natural trait to care about fellow creatures on this earth.

Mr. Michael Lord: Why should we?

Mr. Hancock: We should do that because it is wrong to allow the trade to persist. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself if he does not share that view.
I hope that the Minister will respond in a way which will lead me to believe that I have not wasted a journey tonight, and that this cruelty will not be with us for much longer.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I welcome this opportunity to reply on behalf of the Government about our policy on exports of live animals. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) made many points, and I shall try to deal with them as briefly and as comprehensively as I can.
All matters relating to the export of live animals from Britain touch an immediate and raw nerve among much welfarist opinion. The House and, indeed, the country are properly interested in a wide range of farm animal welfare topics, ranging from the protection of animals on farms, their welfare at markets and in transit, and measures adopted to safeguard them on export. My diet has been completed by hon. Members' interests in frogs' legs and pate de foie gras.
However, a common thread through all of those topics —welfare protection on export is no different— is the widespread misunderstanding about the legislative controls that apply, the Government's record and interest, and the true—rather than exaggerated—position about animals and their welfare. It is perfectly understandable that emotions run high, but I am troubled that a central core of fact is missing from the debate. In the next few minutes, I wish to outline the present position in law and practice on the export of live animals.
Several hon. Members may have seen the press and television items in recent weeks about the export of calves to France. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South referred to them. Although I appreciate that he has been worried about this matter for some time, it was obviously those items which sparked hon. Members' interest. Since that first feature on BBC television news, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South has asked several parliamentary questions, and has now moved this debate.
What the BBC report about calves going from Portsmouth to St. Maio failed to make clear was that the


calves filmed in that news item—like all food animals exported from Great Britain — travelled under the protection of detailed statutory controls which apply to livestock in international transit. Those measures are laid down in Community legislation in two major council directives of 1977 and 1981. Both directives follow and build upon the earlier Council of Europe convention on the welfare protection of animals in international transit, which was signed in 1969. We took an active part in the development of the convention, and pressed for and secured the Community implementing measures.
It is also a pity that the BBC programme failed to explain precisely what Britain does to implement its Community obligations. We apply a series of welfare controls before the animals leave the country. That is why it is difficult to believe what the hon. Gentleman said about lorries coming to Britain and then travelling back with animals that have been on board for a week. First, before they travel abroad, all food animals are rested for a minimum of 10 hours in an export lairage. We approve and license all of those export lairages, and they are all close to the ports of departure. Secondly, when they are in the lairages, animals must be suitably fed and watered. We require certificates to show that that has been done. Next, all animals intended for export must be inspected by one of the veterinary officers in my Department. No animal that is considered unfit for export may form part of any consignment for export. Three-tier lorries are banned.

Mr. Hancock: Is the Minister saying that those directives cover poultry and rabbits, and that international law is implemented in the same way as for calves and horses?

Mrs. Fenner: There are regulations relating to poultry, but I am referring to calves, since they were the subject of the BBC programme.

Mr. Hancock: Does the Minister agree that they do not cover poultry and rabbits, and that lorries touting for poultry pick-ups can carry about 3,000 birds at one time?

Mrs. Fenner: No. We have regulations relating to poultry transit, and perhaps I may send the hon. Gentleman a note so that he is aware of the facts.
In 1984, for example, my veterinary inspectors rejected about 3,200 animals, including more than 2,800 calves, because they concluded that the welfare of those animals could be at risk if they were to travel. The veterinarian then issues a certificate of fitness to accompany those animals which may go. Finally, loading for export is supervised by an official who checks on the transport conditions.
Our veterinary staff and the marine superintendent are active in advising exporters and their hauliers on matters such as the design of lorries and their equipment, and on the accommodation to be provided for animals so that the international requirements of the directive can be met. There is a good deal of detail covering such matters as ventilation, the provision of adequate space and so on. This is important since—as hon. Members will know—nearly all of the exports of live animals from this country go via roll-on/roll-off lorries on ferry boats.
The final stage at this end is the formal recording on the international welfare certificate of the time of loading. The certificate, issued by us in the form of an export licence

under the Export of Animals (Protection) Order 1981, accompanies all animals on their journey abroad. In this way, it is possible for the veterinary and other authorities in the countries of transit and destination to enforce the measures laid down in Community law concerning feeding and watering intervals.
Those, then, are the measures that we take at our end to comply with the directives as an exporting country and to enable their provisions to be met abroad by importing countries.
Let me turn now to the measures abroad. I must stress at the outset that it is a matter of legal fact as well as sheer practicality that the responsibility for the animals' welfare abroad is for the country which imports them or through whose territory they are moved. Some hon. Members may wish otherwise, but they would do well to recognise this central fact.
The Community measures, which all member states are bound to apply, set out extensive provisions about transport conditions. These govern a number of key requirements such as feeding and watering intervals. Since there has been a good deal of public interest about the exact provisions on feeding and watering animals in transit. I shall say precisely what these are.
Community law states, first, that during international transport, livestock must be fed and watered at "suitable intervals". Secondly, the same law requires that animals must not be left for more than 24 hours without food and water but this period can be extended if the journey to the point of unloading can be completed within a reasonable period thereafter. This may seem to some hon. Members a fairly flexible provision, but in the view of international veterinary and scientific opinion it is what is needed to protect animal welfare. Some flexibility is clearly sensible because the need to feed and water animals will depend critically upon the individual circumstances of their journeys. The need will vary according to the age, species and sex of the animals, the prevailing temperature and humidity, the stocking density and the length of journey onward to the final destination.
The working of the directives, as I say, reflects what international veterinary opinion considers is necessary to protect the animals' welfare. It is intended to ensure that animals are not caused suffering either by unduly lengthy deprivations of food and water or from the disruption and undoubted stress that they could suffer from being unloaded in circumstances where it would be better from the welfare viewpoint for them to be taken straight on to their final destination.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South has made several suggestions. I understand his concern on these points. But—as is evident from what I have just said—the variety of different factors involved rules out, in my view, the possibility of, for example, establishing limits for suitable intervals for feeding and watering that could suitably be enshrined in legislation for universal application. However, I believe that the member states of the Community should collaborate to observe transport conditions and to compile the best possible advice, based on experience, on what is needed for the various species in particular. Co-operation of this kind is indeed envisaged in the directives in any cases where there appear to be welfare problems in transit.
A number of the recent press and TV items have given the impression that we are indifferent to the reports produced by welfare bodies such as the RSPCA, which I


have studied at some length. The society has sent us over the years copies of some 140 of its "trails" of consignments of animals exported to the continent, the majority of them dealing with exports which pre-dated the introduction of the 1981 directive. We have given copies of the society's reports, as and when we have received them, to the veterinary authorities in the countries concerned. My officials have had meetings in Paris with the French veterinary authorities and with their counterparts in Rome. All sides remain in close and constant contact. The French authorities, in particular, have carried out extensive inquiries on aspects of the society's claims about our shipments of calves to France. But its analyses and reports to us bear no relation to some of the recent headlines.
First, the French authorities concluded that the directives have not been contravened in any of the cases reported. They were perfectly satisfied that the animals reached their destinations without welfare problems, that they were in excellent shape and that they developed well on French farms. These conclusions do not bear out the extreme inferences about animal suffering that some have drawn from the RSPCA trails. However, this is not surprising when one considers that the RSPCA trails—despite some claims that are made — do not contain observations about the physical condition of animals that might suggest that their welfare suffered through lack of feeding at "suitable intervals". Nor does the RSPCA's information on journey times in itself point to contraventions of the feeding and watering requirements of Directive 77/489/EEC.
That is the general picture that emerges. Many more specific points have been raised, particularly in relation to the trail that was followed by the BBC. I must say, having studied that film in some detail, that I would very much doubt whether there were welfare problems with the consignment concerned. It involved an onward journey of about 70 miles from the French port of St. Malo, to the final farm of destination. I think it very doubtful that the welfare interest of the calves would have been served by

their being unloaded en route for feeding. I am not sure whether the RSPCA has submitted a report to the French veterinary authorities. As yet, we have not received representations from the society on the particular export consignment portrayed in the programme.
The television report also carried reference to calves going to Italy without feeding and watering. Indeed, at one stage the reporter said that the calves that he was following, off the Portsmouth to St. Malo ferry, were lucky not to be going on to Italy without nourishment—again, more confusion. Calves going to Italy—and we have exported about 7,500 since the policy change in January 1984 — would be going through Le Havre or Calais not St. Malo.
As regard the trade to Italy, we shall continue to maintain extensive contact with all the companies and hauliers taking calves overland to Italy. As I have previously explained to the House, we have set up monitoring arrangements so as to gather information on the welfare conditions of animals sent to Italy overland. This has involved the fullest co-operation of the French and Italian authorities, who have been most helpful. On selected consignments, with minimal pre-notification, we arrange for our veterinarians to accompany shipments of calves and other animals from ports here all the way to foreign farms. Again, the results that we have been obtaining show that there are no significant welfare problems, the animals travel perfectly satisfactorily with appropriate food and rest at approved lairages in France en route, and that they develop and fatten well.
I should perhaps now mention the RSPCA's complaint to the European Commission. This has been given some media coverage—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.